[Anonymous]

A board member on my state’s board told me that any time someone has asked for an extension they have given the candidate an extra 6 months without letting any exam scores lapse. I had never heard of this before and figured it would help people out. He said the board gets fewer than 10 requests for this a year. I just wanted to share since I have never heard anyone on these boards talk about it.

[Mrs 300]

I think some people are getting overly sensitive. Mini can suck at “being a human being” sometimes, but he is entitled to his opinion. By the way – sorry to hear about your dad, Mini.

Bottom line, it's not up to any of us. It's up to the state boards. We have to deal with their decisions. If they decide to give someone an extension, so be it. Stranger and more “unfair” things have happened.

Mini, is it “fair” that some states have more rigid requirements than others? Some states require passing the Ethics exam and others don't. Some states allow a higher raw percentage score to pass than others. All of these things are out of our control. Human decisions come into play with other things and NOT just the 18 month rule. A human grader gave me a 76 on BEC. I guess some could say that I might not deserve to be a CPA because of that. There are so many variables. Let them do their jobs. The discretion is not up to us.

All of us have failed to help @jblevy10. He didn't ask whether we think it should be allowed; he asked if anyone had been in his situation. I know we have our freedom to voice our opinion and we did that.

REG - 80 (Becker only)
BEC - 76 (Becker only)
AUD - 71, 76 (Becker only)
FAR - 65, 74, 81! (Becker, Wiley Test Bank, Ninja notes & Audio)

CPA Class of 2012 🙂

[jeff]

If anyone has any strong feelings about anything related to the forum … please e-mail me (jeff@another71.com – subject line “Forum”)

I value your opinion and everything will be confidential.

I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the overall vibe of the forum.

jeff

[jenuno01]

I just don't get why voicing one's opinion is being considered as “causing trouble”. One thing I like about this site is the variety of personalities, backgrounds, and opinions.

Class of 2012

[kristen1479]

I've posted about this before…

I passed my REG in Feb 2011 and BEC in April 2011, while my mom and my stepfather were being treated for cancer. Started studying for FAR immediately after and scheduled it for July 1. My stepdad died June 3rd and at that point I had to put the exams aside to be there for my mom. She was then told her cancer was gone and I started studying again, this time for AUD (because I'd scheduled way before) I was planning on taking Aug 2011. Found out 3 weeks before my exam that my mom's cancer spread and she had 2 months to live. Stopped studying again. Started working a shortened schedule and living half time at my mom's taking care of her as she died. She found a new doctor who thought he could treat and extend her life up to 3 years and she seemed to be feeling a little better. So I started studying again for AUD. Made a halfass attempt in Nov 2011 and didn't pass. Stopped studying again because my mom was getting worse. My mom passed away in Feb 2012 and I was left with a mess of an estate to deal with. I didn't start studying again until Mid-March, worrying the entire time about my first two exams that were going to expire on Aug 26 and early Oct. I wrote the state board and they gave me a one quarter extension. Do I feel it was “fair”? Absolutely. Did I expect it? Absolutely not.

I had to prove everything I told them. I sent death certificates and proof of my FMLA status from work. And I do not think it unfair to anyone else that they would give me an extension for two parents dying in a 10 month period. I didn't even mention to the board that I'm a single parent, that I went through a divorce during all of this also.

Anyway, I passed my last exam, FAR, on August 25th. One day before my REG credit would've expired originally. So turns out I didn't need the extension after all. But after all of the misery I went through, it was sure nice to know that I had that extra window of buffer due to my extenuating circumstances.

I think it's like anything else in life. Getting hand outs shouldn't be the norm. I agree with that. But in “real life,” exceptions are made at times. And these accounting boards aren't stupid. They aren't going to give extensions to people crying about being too busy, or breaking up with their girlfriends.

BEC- 73, 73, 80
REG- 74, 83
FAR- 50(didn't study), 76 (<--How the heck did that happen?)
AUD- 71, 71, 79!!!!!
Finished!!

[Sandra]

I guess I do agree with Mini on the fact that there are really 2 seperate issues on hand here.

Should people get an extension and is there actually any point to the 18 month rule at all?

As the OP said- the board gets fewer than 10 requests per year. Nothing involving human judgement is perfect or even close to it. But I think in the grand scheme of the CPA test taking process, fewer than 10 people per state getting an extension is a non issue in my book. I agree that someone might be more devestated by their dog dying than someone else about losing a parent; but that being said, there are socially accepted norms. Its clearly not a “loophole” that is being abused, based on the numbers.

Also lets keep in mind: ANYONE can apply for the extension, but sufficient backup is required. Its not that “unfair”. If a candidate gets an extension that they perhaps didn't deserve, they still don't have a huge advantage over someone else. Again, no one is getting extensions for being stupid. Maybe if you're stupid and failing for no reason other than being a retard, and your parent happens to die at the right time, you could get an extension. But so what? You're still stupid and likely won't pass.

Krickets arguement is against the 18 month rule in general, and I guess that is a different subject in some ways.

As someone who has passed the tests now I do worry about keeping the designation meaningful, probably moreso with the CMA than the CPA. When I first started studying and joined this and another CPA forum, I would have said “If you're too stupid to pass within 6 months you shouldn't be a CPA” and also would have likely made a case for only allowing people to take the test x number of times as well. For me its hard to imagine failing the test more than maybe once. Certainly if I failed a section twice I would contemplate taking a bath with the toaster.

Hopefully Kricket won't mind me using her as an example. Kricket is my buddy. She is my buddy because among other things she's smart. I hate stupid people and don't befriend them. Its no secret that she's failed these tests quite a few times. Having asked her endless questions on facebook while I was studying I can tell all of you that the girl knows her shit. The only section I probably know more than her on is BEC, but given my distain for IT its probably a close call really. I studied maybe 50 hours for REG, knew $hit about $hit on the tax side and passed with an 89. These tests are just as much about test taking as they are about what we know. If we both had our licenses today Kricket would be the better CPA hands down, but as luck would have it she's a shitty freaking test taker. If it weren't for the 18 month rule she would have her CPA license by now, and quite frankly it wouldn't hurt the CPA population one bit. Meanwhile our “A71 buddy” who says he was “mashing on the keyboard” for sims has his license.

No test taking process is perfect, but the CPA testing process REALLY sucks in a lot of ways. This thread really isn't about how to improve the test, but since its gone that way anyway, I will say that I think MCQs can reward the stupid/unprepared, while true fill in the blank (and not with a freaking drop down menu of answer selections) more closely test what a candidate actually knows. Of course that would require hand grading, so its not really an option really.

The CMA used to be 4 parts (now 2) and people on both sides complain and say its unfair. People that took the 4 part test say its not fair that it was “dumbed down”. People that are taking the 2 part test say its harder because more infomation is covered on each test. If we do away with the 18 month rule, or grant more “extensions”, people that had to pass without that will say its unfair. But the reality is that unless the test is made to be more difficult, the only difference is the expense people incur to pass.

My CPA “experience” has certainly taught me more than just the $hit I had to learn to pass the test. Maybe I'm just a little more patient and see that things aren't quite as black and white.

[jeff]

I don't really follow the genesis of some of this lurking negativity – but I'll cut to the chase:

If you have advice/criticism that is solicited and warranted – make it constructive.

Every 6 months – this place goes toxic for some reason and I'm done with it.

😉 <— for Kristen

Jeff

[Sandra]

Hmmm… I disagree with Mini, but I don't think anything on this thread could be called “negative” really. If we are going through a sunshine and puppies and kittens phase on here, I best take my leave quickly.

[jeff]

There's been some blatant drive-by flame attempts that I've caught and either deleted or edited recently that only a few people probably saw.

I don't really know what else has been going on – but when Kricket has had enough – I take note.

It seems like if I don't allow sledge hammers and baseball bats … it's automatically “puppies and rainbows”.

I don't get that, but so be it.

Anyone who doesn't want to be civil and helpful is more than welcome to leave.

To be clear – I don't have any issue with you Sandra. You're blunt and I don't agree with your take that people who struggle are diluting the credential…if my assessment of your stance is correct.

Some people suck at taking tests but are great with clients.

Some people are great at taking tests, but have the personality of a rusty nail.

[Sandra]

Well my stance is that not all that struggle are diluting the CPA pool, and don't think the 18 month rule is helping keeping the pool “pure”. Not sure how you got what you got out of my posts, but I'll re-read what I wrote and will clarify if needed. Glad I'm not the issue though- I assumed I was.

[Minimorty]

To be honest, Kricket and I do not have any bad history and I was surprised to see that she was offended by any of my comments. I have reread this entire thread a couple of times now and still dont see anything offensive or outrageous. I dont even see anything negative. Is simply having a viewpoint not shared by the majority of the posters considered negative now?

As a side note, since I received your email I have ignored certain posters in order to keep the peace. I plan to continue to do so, assuming I am still welcome to post.

Do you know what I think might be helpful? I think it might be helpful if you outlined the goals and intentions of the site. While I continue to believe that different people continue to come here and post for different reasons, perhaps there is a certain purpose that you had in mind when you created the site. I'm sure that purpose has evolved since the beginning, so perhaps you can explain what purpose you see this site serving.

Is this site supposed to be an emotional support forum? A technical support forum? I place to blow off steam and air frustrations? A place to vent? Are alumni welcome? Etc.

[Anonymous]

Sandra, I haven't met anyone on this forum with your attitude.

You are not the one to decide who is going to be a CPA and NO ONE cares about your views. Go get another master's or designation to distinguish yourself from the moronic CPA crowd.

[jeff]

“Is this site supposed to be an emotional support forum? A technical support forum? I place to blow off steam and air frustrations? A place to vent? Are alumni welcome? Etc.”

Yes 🙂

[Sandra]

ok well I re-read my post and I totally don't get why everyone is all up in arms- nor do I understand how it could be misleading.

I'm not going to get in a pissing match with anyone here, and won't even humor “75” with a reply to his/her post. Way too much anger for a forum post dude… chill out.

[jeff]

I only break this out when absolutely necessary…way too powerful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ

[katiekanton]

@75 I have at times thought Sandra to be brusque, abrasive, and one of her posts even made me to want to ask what state she lived in to avoid setting foot in it (although I can't remember which one exactly), but there is NOTHING offensive in what she said. In fact, I found myself reading her thoughtful, well-worded post and saying “there's some wisdom that's been lacking on this board for quite some time”.

I can't fathom how anyone read her post and came away thinking she was saying anything offensive, or advocating for keeping the pool “pure”. I would encourage you to reread, slowly and carefully. Sometimes a misplaced “not” or “but” can yield an entirely different meaning to what you have read. Even if you don't, I couldn't let her be maligned without an objective third party speaking up in her defense.

AUD - 88
FAR - 90
REG - 85
BEC - 88

[Author]

Replies