[cpa1234]

Does anyone feel Peter Olinto’s lectures are always 45 minutes to an hour long, but Tim’s are always less than 30 minutes? I always thought this was because Pete may be doing harder material, but as I am studying REG, I feel that Pete is highlighting everything on the page and reading everything out loud for an hour, but Tim is getting right to the point and focusing on the most important information. I mean, we can’t memorize everything…. right??

What do you guys think!

[Anonymous]

I agree 100%.

I thought Pete was more entertaining and more to the point than Tim for FAR. But for REG and BEC I thought Pete was long-winded and had you highlighting everything. I know it's a cardinal sin around these parts to bad-mouth Olinto, but I think Tim was much better in REG than Pete and Mike was much better in BEC than Pete.

Don't get me wrong, I think Pete is the most engaging and entertaining of the 4 instructors, but all you have to do is look at the length of a lecture before starting it to know who is teaching it. Any lecture over 40 minutes is an Olinto lecture for sure. Maybe they give Pete the longest material because he is so entertaining and it helps people get through it?

I take REG on 6/6 and have already passed FAR and BEC. Who does the lectures for AUD? I start studying for that directly after REG and haven't looked ahead yet.

[MIsconnie]

Mike and Angie Brown are atrocious. I love Peter and Tim. I like Peter more because he is just entertaining in general and I feel he explains the material much better.

[Anonymous]

Angie was bad. She just reads word for word from the text and doesn't really add any helpful insights. Not to mention that she isn't very charismatic to begin with.

I liked Mike. He isn't as entertaining as either Tim or Pete, but he gets to the point quicker than both of them while still not coming across as a robot. I thought he explained the BEC material well and had enough personality and stories to keep me engaged.

I haven't started AUD yet and I don't know who lectures for it, so maybe my opinions will change after I see all the lectures.

[cpa1234]

@Zach

I think Tim does pretty much all of Audit but I think Mike snuck in there? It's been a little while since I did all the lectures.

I actually find Mike a little robotic. But he and Tim get right to the point and star the most important information. Pete has lines everywhere. I find myself just looking at the end of the video and making my own judgments as to what to write down.

I remember his lectures were so long for FAR, but he actually helped explain complex calculations well. But in Business Law I don't see why you would need to spend 7 minutes just explaining how to be ethical.

[Anonymous]

Peter > Mike > Tim > Angie

[MSim]

I'm studying REG using Becker and for me, Olinto works better because he explains things very well and his concepts actually easily sticks with me after just listening to him. MYLEGS will forever be embedded in my brain (dunno if that's a good thing or not). Also, when he does the MCQs included in the chapter, he explains WHY the other choices were wrong which helps reinforce the material.

Gearty only really reads the question and tells you the correct answer for the MCQs. He also takes forever and keeps repeating what you need to write on your notes (like, you don't need to repeat what I need to write because I can see it on the screen). And please don't get me started with “CONFIDENCE BUILDING QUESTION GANG!” That was funny the first time, but maaaaan, does it get old quick lol.

[Anonymous]

Pete, Pete, Pete! I love Peter Olinto:) LOL I never listened to the lectures with my book open, unless I had difficulty with something, but Peter Olinto is just so much more entertaining to listen to when you are in the car! he was also great in Skills Practice explanations-I actually used those a lot for BLaw in REG and on my re-take of FAR to nail down some problem areas….

[Jen-J]

AUD is Tim and Mike. I liked Mike when I paid attention. He's easy to tune out and a little long-winded, though. Angie is the only one I couldn't stand, she added nothing for me. (I read first so the lectures were only for reinforcement and explanation.) Pete was fine in FAR but too long winded in REG. And Tim was also okay, but not great.

[Lennamey]

I'm taking FAR now and I Like Pete better than Tim depending on my struggle with a topic. If my understanding is pristine with a topic, I like that Tim focuses on what I should know for the exam but if I am struggling, I admired when Pete got into the weeds because it helped me understand.

I kind of wished Pete did some of NFP and Gov accounting because the reading for one module is like 18 pages long but only has a 15 min lecture? cmon Tim. !!!

One of the topics I am struggling with so far (more so over thinking and lacking the self confidence to choose the best answer) are Accounting Errors and Changes and AR receivables in Chapter 3. I spent a whole 3 days on it and was like no eff this I have to move on, then I happened to find a free wiley lecture on YouTube about AR and FINALLY I UNDERSTOOD !!! WENT BACK AND DID THE QUESTIONS THE FOLLOWING DAY AND GOT 80% of them correct which was way better than the 30% level I was at.

I am still struggling with Accounting Changes and Errors and its crazy because I always figured the most complex topics would give me a headache but it's the simple things. Crazy how the world works. I am going to sign up for wiley's free 14 day trial and use their lectures as additional support since it was super helpful on Accounts Receivable.

[Author]

Replies