[Anonymous]

Anybody else find that when they’re studying the area that they work in/know a lot about, they find themselves disagreeing with their study materials?

I’ve spent a year working in tax accounting in a poor area. Right now, I’m reading my REG book, and am in the “Earned Income Credit” section. It lists as an eligibility requirement that the individual claiming the credit must have a qualifying child…wrong! Without a child, the credit is limited to $475, but there’s still a credit! And…last night I was watching a video supplement, and in the first 30 seconds, I was disagreeing with the statements (ironically about credits again).

It made me wonder if the exam materials tend to summarize to the point that they’re inaccurate (like, the big EIC amounts are with kids, but not all EIC requires kids), and everyone finds this when studying the stuff they know about, or if I happen to have found the couple of rare instances of incorrect information. (Like, you guys who are in audit – was your Audit exam material accurate? Or lawyers, was the Bus Law part of REG correct? Etc etc.)

EDIT: OK, got to the end of the EIC section, and it does say that a reduced credit is available without a kid. Wiley redeems itself. But it still frustrated me to see the initial 6-point requirements listing include having a kid. 😛

[Anonymous]

YES!!!!! Your timing is perfect on this! I had a meltdown last night over pension plans because Becker sometimes lumps retirement plans in to one bucket when there are very distinct differences (that matter to the way the question will be answered) between defined benefit and defined contribution. I also lost my mind over their phraseology for bonds. I started in the financial industry 18 years ago working for a bond trader. Hour after hour, day after day, bonds bonds bonds. And Becker somehow managed to confuse me. WTF.

There were also issues with REG and the presentation of the '33 and '34 act. I'm a compliance officer; it's my JOB to enforce my firm's compliance with those (and other) mandates every damn day. I tried to think of things their way for the test, but in real life, it's a whole ‘nother ballgame.

[Anonymous]

YES!!!!! Your timing is perfect on this! I had a meltdown last night over pension plans because Becker sometimes lumps retirement plans in to one bucket when there are very distinct differences (that matter to the way the question will be answered) between defined benefit and defined contribution. I also lost my mind over their phraseology for bonds. I started in the financial industry 18 years ago working for a bond trader. Hour after hour, day after day, bonds bonds bonds. And Becker somehow managed to confuse me. WTF.

There were also issues with REG and the presentation of the '33 and '34 act. I'm a compliance officer; it's my JOB to enforce my firm's compliance with those (and other) mandates every damn day. I tried to think of things their way for the test, but in real life, it's a whole ‘nother ballgame.

[Anonymous]

Haha glad to know I'm not the only one! I know that textbook and reality are always different, but I didn't expect them to be in direct contradiction at times. If we can just remember what answer we're supposed to give, then we'll be alright, I guess!

[Anonymous]

Haha glad to know I'm not the only one! I know that textbook and reality are always different, but I didn't expect them to be in direct contradiction at times. If we can just remember what answer we're supposed to give, then we'll be alright, I guess!

[barelystayingsane]

I haven't started working full-time yet, but I have noticed that Becker tries to oversimplify things to make them easier to remember and just ends up being incorrect.

And DJN, I agree that Becker's coverage of the '33 and '34 Act was atrocious.

[barelystayingsane]

I haven't started working full-time yet, but I have noticed that Becker tries to oversimplify things to make them easier to remember and just ends up being incorrect.

And DJN, I agree that Becker's coverage of the '33 and '34 Act was atrocious.

[Author]

Replies