[jrs91]

Has anyone heard of this?

I understand that there are numerous vague factors in the grading process but essentially it comes down to how well you did in relation to the pool of test takers in the exam period.

I guess you could theorize that people who take it in the beginning of the window are giving themselves less time to study than those who prepare until the end of the window. However, they may have waited the prior window out and/or are retaking the exam, in which case they theoretically would do better.

Just seems like there’s a number of ways to slice it and ultimately its a wash. There’s probably a relatively good mix of scores for a number of reasons each period.

I’m interested in other’s thoughts.

[spatel15]

I think when applying their IRT stats process to determine the MCQ weights based on prior results, perhaps they're just trying to increase the sample size(i.e. approach the true mean) by including new results as well, and that's why they wait?

That way the weight is based on all responses, not just the initial ones? It would make reasonable sense to include “all” results in determining weight. And usually there'd be no adjustment to the weight, given the massive size of the existing sample compared to the much smaller size of incremental samples added, unless of course the incremental results somehow were so off “mean” that a change in weight would occur. I.e. Past results lead to a 70% probability of correctly answering MCQ##, while in this period, 0% of the candidates correctly answered MCQ##.

The only issue I see is whether AICPA determines the weights only during the pre-test period(with a strict no-adjustment policy) or if they continue to adjust the weight after including the accepted pretest MCQ's into the operating MCQ's.

Just my opinion. Who knows.

[Track55]

I had an abacus when I was little and I'm a pretty nice guy.

My calculus teacher also had an abacus so I didn't laugh when he mentioned it. And he was a nice guy too.

AUD - 74, 99 !!
REG - 74, 92
BEC - 83
FAR - 73, 86

Studying for Ethics exam

California candidate
Business and Industry

[FIFOisbetterthanLIFO]

@spatel, I think you are exactly right. It can be curved without saying its curved just based on what they consider a “hard” or “medium” question. Each quarter they are crunching numbers to see what was a truly “hard” question based on candidates answers. Seems reasonable and also makes sense on why people think they did so horrible and STILL pass. Sorry folks…we aren't smarter than we think…

FAR - Passed (82)
BEC - Passed (76)
AUD - Passed (89)
REG - Passed! (81)
AICPA Ethics

Licensed CPA

[Missy]

(Devastated that nobody picked up on the European swallows reference. Monty python is rolling in his grave).

Licensed Massachusetts Non Reporting CPA since 2012
Finance/Admin/HR Manager

[jlee1086]

Even though I passed when I took FAR at the beginning of the window, I just don't see how when you take it affects the curve. Except by chance. How can you reason a conspiracy theory out of it?

MLA, according to a Becker instructor, they do curve the exam (but good luck getting them to admit it). He told my class a story of a guy who got an exam from the wrong quarter. He had to wait an extra 2 months to get his score. They had no pool of people to compare his raw score to until the next window. To the instructor, the only logical reason for this is that they curve. No word on whether the guy passed. My theory is that the “difficulty” of each question is determined by how many people get it right. Meaning that if I took FAR in the end of the window, maybe I would've failed because there were more smart/studious people taking it at that time. Kinda of like you might be knocked of of the top 5% if you moved to a different town or happened to be in the class of 2005 vs 2006.

FAR 57 (11/2014), 64 (1/2015), 79 (7/2015)
AUD 68 (2/2015), 79 (11/2015)
REG 79 (1/2016)
BEC 81 (4/2016)

[Author]

Replies