[Excel14]

Okay, starting to really freak after scrolling through the questions people are posting on that forum. I am using Gleim to study, and very few of my questions look like examples from Becker or NINJA. Is it time to panic? My test is on 2/28. I recognize a couple of simlar questions, but overall the Becker and NINJA questions look MUCH more involved. I always thought people swore by Gleim. Anyone?

BEC (2/28/16) ----- 78
FAR (09/10/16)-----
AUD
REG

CIA, CGAP, CFE

[Excel14]

Bump

BEC (2/28/16) ----- 78
FAR (09/10/16)-----
AUD
REG

CIA, CGAP, CFE

[Anonymous]

People swear by everything. People pass with every set of review materials (meaning the legitimate, big-name ones – Gleim counts in that), and people fail with every set of review materials. If the difference in the questions is making you concerned, then buy a subscription to a 2nd test bank online (something like NINJA or Wiley CPAExcel that you get access to online without having to wait for deliveries) so that you can practice those as well and make sure you're covered.

However, keep in mind that people will be posting the problems that gave them the most trouble, so you're probably seeing the longest and most complicated of the questions from NINJA and Becker, may not mean that the majority of them are like that.

[Excel14]

Thanks Lilla. I have the NINJA MCQ, but who has had time to look at them. It's all I can do, to get through this stuff in Gleim alone. I was asking, strictly because some of the questions like NPV for example, include such things as additional working capital, set up costs, etc, when computing NPV discounted flows in Becker and NINJA, but no such thing in Gleim. Some of those questions absolutely looked Greek to me, whenever I have covered them. I will see if I can squeeze in some NINJA questions as well. I made the decision due to time constraints, to stick strictly with Gleim, but when I read some of these examples from other sources, I worried.

BEC (2/28/16) ----- 78
FAR (09/10/16)-----
AUD
REG

CIA, CGAP, CFE

[jlee1086]

Gleim has a reputation for giving you the whole kitchen sink. Is it really the case that Becker would have a topic Gleim doesn't?

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)

[Anonymous]

If it's worrying you, maybe do NINJA MCQ in place of Gleim MCQ? So stick to your same study plan, just simply substitute the one MCQ for the other? So, you read the chapter of Gleim, then instead of doing the associated Gleim MCQ, you switch to the associated NINJA (if your prior plan was read Gleim then do Gleim MCQ)?

However, I think the better thing to do is maybe to stop looking in the study forum and just buckle down to study. People pass with Gleim all the time. Yes, people also fail with Gleim. But, people also fail with NINJA, Becker, Yeager, Roger, etc. All of the review materials claim a very high pass rate, but the actual pass rates on the exams are around (or below) 50%, so either there's a lot of people sitting for exams that don't use any review materials, or the review material's pass rates are all inflated.

My thought is that Gleim (as well as all the others) is a sufficient study material, but your study time and study methods may or may not be sufficient, and Gleim may or may not be the right study material for you. The only way to find out is to give it your best shot and see what happens. So, I'd really suggest that you pick what you're going to do (sounds like your plan after careful consideration was to go Gleim-only), and then stick to it, and if something is shaking your confidence then avoid it.

[Excel14]

I don't think it is a matter of Becker having a topic Gleim doesn't, but moreso some nuisances with those topics, that I didn't see with my Gleim material. I have studied pretty thoroughly, and will just stick to my plotted course. I will heed your advice, and try not to panic over what I see in the forum. I know it is every bit about my study habits, as it is my chosen review course. Gleim has been around since dirt, so they should give me the sufficient tools to pass; if not, I will change gears after getting my score.

BEC (2/28/16) ----- 78
FAR (09/10/16)-----
AUD
REG

CIA, CGAP, CFE

[jlee1086]

When I did a Gleim free trial, the FAR questions covered SEC topics I didn't see in Becker or Wiley. From from I see on the forums, Gleim seems to have the most little details. From my experience, Wiley and Gleim go into more nuanced details than Becker. Guess there's always an exception to the rule!

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