[Montreal]

Becker Question –

Chapter 4.3

I only can get about 60% right on the 121 MCQ.

This is my second try and I have read the book 2 times.

Is it normal? How you guys handle this Ch. 4.

This chapter is really killing me.

Thanks in advance.

Montreal

AUD - 71
REG - TBD
BEC - TBD
FAR - TBD
{Becker}

[Peanut]

I hate chapter 4!! I just finished that chapter. I did bad my first time through too. Every other chapter I would get 60-70% my first time through (I give thanks to my intense note taking) But chapter 4, that large section with 121 MCQs, I only got 45% my first time through, I went through a second time and now have 83% done. Just keep going though it, over and over, you'll get it. Those questions were hard! Just wait til you get to the supplemental, there's 121 MCQ 😛 … On a serious note–keep with it, keep going through, it'll click. Are you practicing the flash cards?

AUD 81 (X4) Previous scores 59, 72, 72
REG 80 (X3) Previous scores 59, 60
FAR 75 (X2) Previous score 67
BEC 79 (X2) Previous score 58

[Phllop]

This was definitely the hardest chapter, and I found the Becker lecture to be absolutely useless. The best way I started figuring it all out was to really think long and hard about every question and every detail. Usually my average question time was 45 seconds, I would spend up to 2 minutes on those and was getting it pretty well by the end.

The supplemental questions were mostly similar to those in 4.3 as well, once you start doing well in 4.3 give those a try for a real test. I did that poorly my first few times through it as well, you'll get it!

REG: 85
AUD: 74, 85
FAR: 74 (sigh)
BEC: 80 (don't even ask me how)

When I say C-P you say 'Ayyyyy show me the money'
-PO

[Peanut]

@Phllop, I think I found all Becker lectures to be useless… “Highlight this, highlight that” “okay scholars!”… They don't add much to their lectures. Live classes are much better!

AUD 81 (X4) Previous scores 59, 72, 72
REG 80 (X3) Previous scores 59, 60
FAR 75 (X2) Previous score 67
BEC 79 (X2) Previous score 58

[letsfixthis]

Tim Gearty: Does anyone else feel like he just goes through the motions with these lectures? How hard is it for someone to read from the text and then say “highlight this!” while repeating the word “again” about 50,000 times and saying “good luck!” another 25,000 times? I'm seriously not sure he adds much value to these lectures. He wasn't that bad for FAR but he's been absolutely atrocious for AUD, in my opinion.

BEC: 87 (7/13/11)
FAR: 86 (8/31/11)
AUD: 99 (10/6/11)
REG: 88 (11/30/11)
Ethics: 100
(Illinois)

Used Becker for all four parts. Supplemented it with Wiley Test Bank for FAR and REG (HIGHLY recommended) and NINJA notes.

[Minimorty]

@letsfixthis – I edited the first sentence in your post. Probably not appropriate.

[letsfixthis]

@Minimorty…..not to get on your case but that seems like a pretty questionable edit to me, at least compared to a lot of other posts I've read on here. What's wrong with expressing an opinion? Nobody on the board was attacked, and no foul language was used. I object to that type of edit, I think that's getting too stiff.

BEC: 87 (7/13/11)
FAR: 86 (8/31/11)
AUD: 99 (10/6/11)
REG: 88 (11/30/11)
Ethics: 100
(Illinois)

Used Becker for all four parts. Supplemented it with Wiley Test Bank for FAR and REG (HIGHLY recommended) and NINJA notes.

[Minimorty]

Alright, I changed it back. We'll see if anyone else thinks it is offensive.

[letsfixthis]

Thanks. If people respond that it's offensive I'll change it myself. I look at this board as my one safe haven to vent so I just don't want to see it become too formal…..

BEC: 87 (7/13/11)
FAR: 86 (8/31/11)
AUD: 99 (10/6/11)
REG: 88 (11/30/11)
Ethics: 100
(Illinois)

Used Becker for all four parts. Supplemented it with Wiley Test Bank for FAR and REG (HIGHLY recommended) and NINJA notes.

[Anonymous]

Now if he wrote “Tim Gearty SUCKS_______”, then that might have been offensive. LOL!

It's hard to find something positive to say about these review instructors anyway. They are the only faces and personalities we see for hundreds of grueling hours…

[letsfixthis]

I will say I do like Peter Olinto. I feel like he (generally) points you in the right direction as far as what you should focus on, and does it in a way that keeps you focused. I thought he did a pretty good job with BEC. Mike Potenza was a different story, LOL. We need more Olinto, less Gearty :). Anyone else agree?

BEC: 87 (7/13/11)
FAR: 86 (8/31/11)
AUD: 99 (10/6/11)
REG: 88 (11/30/11)
Ethics: 100
(Illinois)

Used Becker for all four parts. Supplemented it with Wiley Test Bank for FAR and REG (HIGHLY recommended) and NINJA notes.

[Peanut]

Mike Potenza is hands down amazing. He taught the live classes I went to in NYC. He's such a great instructor, he would add so much to the classes. As for Tim and Peter—They're kind of both clowns!!!!!!! As for which one would I like to fall asleep during the lecture, or possibly stab a sharp pencil in my eye-TG wins that battle.

AUD 81 (X4) Previous scores 59, 72, 72
REG 80 (X3) Previous scores 59, 60
FAR 75 (X2) Previous score 67
BEC 79 (X2) Previous score 58

[nickc1028]

@Peanut

It's kind of funny you say that. Most people here don't really like Mike Potenza's teaching style. I didn't mind him too much though, but since he is a “typical IT guy” -(Peter Olinto), he seems to have to try a lot harder to be enthusiastic haha.

As far as Becker 4 goes, some things in Audit make logical sense. Becker 4 does not necessarily follow any particular logical pattern at first. So just memorize the different scenarios, at least that is what I did besides understand the ^racing and vouching

CPA
AUD - 7/26/11 - pass
BEC - 8/31/11 - pass
FAR - 10/14/11 - pass
REG - 11/26/11 - pass
CMA
2/27/15 - pass
5/9/15 - pass

[Peanut]

@nickc1028, After I posted that my friend told me that Mikes lectures suck on the video lol. He was awesome during the live class!

I think the flash cards are going to really help with this section of the exam

AUD 81 (X4) Previous scores 59, 72, 72
REG 80 (X3) Previous scores 59, 60
FAR 75 (X2) Previous score 67
BEC 79 (X2) Previous score 58

[jeff]

Candid thoughts about review programs is ok. There's other ways to give criticism than to say a person “sucks”…it's me that will get the nastigram from corporate counsel.

Jeff Elliott, CPA (KS) | Another71 | NINJA CPA | NINJA CMA | NINJA CPE

[letsfixthis]

@Jeff. Apologies. It won't happen again but I have to ask – why would you get in trouble for something like that? It's just someone's opinion and saying that something “sucks” is so common these days that you'll even find it on TV, on channels like ABC Family and even Nickelodeon. It's common speak at this point.

It's your forum and I'm not trying to stir any waters here, but I'm just really perplexed why a comment like that would have to be edited. Is it because his feelings would get hurt if he saw it? By choice, these instructors are (very minor) “celebrities” so don't they subject themselves to these kinds of criticisms? I guess I'm just really confused why “corporate counsel” could send you a “nastigram” because I posted my opinion that a specific instructor “sucks”. Would you please clarify?

BEC: 87 (7/13/11)
FAR: 86 (8/31/11)
AUD: 99 (10/6/11)
REG: 88 (11/30/11)
Ethics: 100
(Illinois)

Used Becker for all four parts. Supplemented it with Wiley Test Bank for FAR and REG (HIGHLY recommended) and NINJA notes.

[Author]

Replies