[Matt]

I scored a 73 on the FAR exam in Q4, yet was comparable in the Gov’t (IV) and weaker in the other 3. Yes, weaker in 3 of the 4 sections. How did I score a 73?

Would someone please help me understand how the CPA exam is scored? The canned AICPA/NASBA explanation makes no sense.

[chandler]

There is still much unknown about the CPA scoring process. Here is what we do know: you automatically start with a “medium” difficulty MC testlet. If you do well on this, you're given a “difficult” testlet, if not you get another “medium” testlet. “Difficult” testlet questions count more/give you more credit. SIMs are pre-determined without regard to your performance. The scores are then scaled to even out tests. A 60% raw score on one may be the same as a 70% raw score on another test depending on question difficulty. Your score report compares your performance to “average” candidates- ie those who score between a 75 and 80. The problem with “weaker”, “comparable”, and “stronger” is that they give very little detail. Since anything below a 75 is “weaker”, you were likely pretty close in these 3 categories.
For example, your breakdown could easily be:
1. Conceptual Framework, Financial Reporting- 72 “Weaker”
2. Select Financial Statement Accounts- 70 “Weaker”
3. Select Transactions- 73 “Weaker”
4. State & Local Governments- 78 “Comparable”
You end up with a 73 overall.

[Pork Flavored Bacon]

The performance report is completely meaningless. Here is a reply I wrote up in another post but I will edit it to fit your example. It's a long-winded response but I want to illustrate just how worthless the performance report is.
Do not rely on the Content Type section to determine whether you did well in a section or not. That part of the performance report is complete bullsh–. I just looked at it on the AICPA website and I see they are still doing the same stupid crap as they did back when I took the exam a few years ago.

This is what it says: “First, each content area contains fewer questions than the total exam, so the results on a single content area are much less reliable than the total exam score. Second, candidates are administered a different set of items and a different number of items that cover different aspects of the content areas. Consequently, the content area performance should not be used to interpret areas of importance or emphasis when retaking a section.”

What that means is they only take a sample of questions from each content area to determine your “performance”. You stated you have “comparable” in governmental but “weaker” in the other three sections.

Here is how it works. Let's say you had 15 questions in each of the four content areas. They might take six questions from each of those sections, determine if you got those six questions right or wrong, and then determine your strength in that area. So out of those 15 questions, let's say in governmental you got four of them right. By chance, for governmental they chose the four questions you got right and two you got wrong for your performance report. Yes, you got two out of six wrong in that sample so they might say you are “comparable” but in reality, you got 74% of governmental accounting questions wrong.

That is about as unreliable as any report can be since they don't use all of the questions in the exam. When you study again, definitely study everything and not just the parts which indicate “weaker” or “comparable” because for all you know, it can be opposite for all content areas on that report.

FAR - 75 | REG - 87 | AUD - 82 | LAW - 81

[Author]

Replies