[payfields]

I am not trying to offend anyone, as i know there are a lot of people who have taken parts of the exam multiple times…

But does anyone thing there should be some kind of limit to the amount of times you can take each section of the exam?

I recently heard about an ex employee who took over 40 exams, then finally passed all 4, but not within the 18 month period, actually had one exam expire by two months, then another by 3 days… yet wrote a long complaint letter and asked for a reprieve from the rules and was granted a license.

I was so annoyed to hear not only did they take 40 exams, but they didnt even complete them within the time period, but the BOA still gave them a license!

Unfair to the people who did complete it within 18 months. It then also make me thing of the max number of times for failing a section.

Thoughts?

[golfball7773]

“That said, if you were a CFO/CEO, who would you want heading your accounting department – the person who took 40 attempts to get their CPA, or the person who only took 6? “

I would want the one who took it 40 times. They still know their stuff, but they have displayed much more dedication to achieving a goal and perseverance!

FAR: 63, 55, 62
REG: 65, 77*
AUD: Fail, 64, 71
BEC: 72, 74, 81

*expired

[Bear-Bear]

Well, I mean…it's like the movie Rudy. Did he have heart, dedication, and perseverance far beyond your average person? You betcha. But how were his football skills?

[Jdn9201]

Sorry Golfball, but I'd take the person who took 6 attempts rather than 40. I will agree with you – a CPA who took exams 40 times definitely has more perseverance, but more dedication? What if half of those times were due to the person not being properly prepared? Just because it takes the person with 6 attempts takes less time doesn't diminish the dedication it took to achieve the same thing the 40 attempt person did. Also, I'd be in favor of extending the 18 month window, but not to 5 years. My concern is FAR and REG likely changes a good amount over a 5 year period. Someone who gets licensed who passed FAR or REG 6 months ago has been tested on the most recent material, whereas the person who took it 5 years ago was tested over material that has changed.

BEC - 88 8/29/15
REG - 82 11/14/15
AUD - 83 1/8/16
FAR - 80 2/29/16

[MaLoTu]

I think the number of times someone took to finish the exam is irrelevant to their being qualified to be a CFO/CEO. I would say that that information has zero bearing on the ultimate decision. In fact many CFOs do not have a CPA and I think it would be hard to find any CEO that actually has one. Totally irrelevant.

[Son]

mla11692, with all due respect to the person you're referring to, this is exactly the situation I'm talking about. If someone is not able to pay attention to details preparing for the exam due to their physical condition how can they be trusted with, say, tax return preparation? I admire her perseverance, but she shouldn't have been licensed until she was in a state enabling her to pass the exam. I enjoy running very much, but since I'm not physically gifted enough to join the Olympics team doesn't mean I need to be considered for the team just because I try very hard.

golfball7773, I second Bear-Bear – provided everything else is equal, never in my life would I consider a person who attempted the exam 40 times for such a position. 40 attempts translates into 5 years of studying and taking the exams, assuming you're taking tests twice every window. A sudden loss of a loved one or another difficulty in life can throw you off your track for a while, maybe even for years. But 5 years of trying and failing? Something tells me a person is either not smart enough, doesn't work hard enough, is not taking this exam seriously or lacks the ability to step back and evaluate what he has been doing wrong and try a different approach.

MaLoTu, I respectfully disagree. I work in public and about 80% of all people I interact with are CPAs. As a general rule (and there are obviously exceptions), those who passed quickly and with high scores are better accountants that those who struggled with the exam. I have worked with two Watt Sells recipients; the guys are brilliant. I have worked with those who have struggled with the exam for years; usually I can tell very soon they are weaker than their peers with the same level of experience. I've seen 2 top performers who have had difficulties passing the exam (but by struggles I mean it took them maybe 7-10 attempts total for all sections. But that's out of a couple hundreds of people I've communicated with, so while my sample is not all-inclusive, I think it shows the general trend.

AUD - passed
REG - passed
BEC - passed
FAR - passed

[MaLoTu]

@Son, I was talking about the decision to hire a CFO/CEO, not public accounting. Most CEOs do not even have a CPA and may not even be from a finance/accounting background. Many CFOs might not have an accounting background, they usually have more of a finance background. I am simply stating that if someone is even in the running for one of those roles the last thing anyone is going to consider is how many times they took the CPA exam. Those positions are earned through hard work and proving you have what it takes. The number of times they took the exam is irrelevant in that situation. The CPA may or may not give either one an advantage (more so the CFO I would presume).

[Bear-Bear]

In my hypothetical scenario, I was referring to what a CFO/CEO would want out of the person heading their accounting department (i.e. Controller, Manager, etc).

[MaLoTu]

@Bear-Bear – Oh! lol. I misread that … I was reading it on my phone.

[Skynet]

golfball7773, Bear-Bear, Son – While you guys are arguing about deciding on a CFO/Controller based on the number of times the exams is taken, I will be hiring the Hot Woman in the Short Skirt. As long as she know what is a Debit and a Credit is, then I'm OK with it. : )

[Son]

MaLoTo, I see where you're coming from now. I agree that CFO and especially CEO don't need to be a CPA. I was looking more specifically at people working in the field of accounting (public or private). As a general rule, people with a CPA license will be more knowledgeable and have better career prospects; and among CPA there is again a general trend for people who passed the exam with the lesser amount of attempts to do better professionally. I just disagree with the notion that CPA exam cannot work as a potential indicator of someone's aptitude and success as an accountant.

AUD - passed
REG - passed
BEC - passed
FAR - passed

[Missy]

I totally disagree that performance on an exam correlates even remotely to professional aptitude, but we'll agree to disagree.

Licensed Massachusetts Non Reporting CPA since 2012
Finance/Admin/HR Manager

[Son]

I'd be really curious to hear what makes you believe that? Considering the exam is basically 16 hours of testing of one's understanding of core accounting concepts. I can see how it tells you nothing about a person's ability to work in a specific position/branch of accounting; however, as I said, all my (albeit limited) experience so far tells me there's a direct correlation between the two.

AUD - passed
REG - passed
BEC - passed
FAR - passed

[Bear-Bear]

Here's one thing we can all agree on: pizza and beer.

[Missy]

That's fine for you and I'm not trying to change your mind. My perspective with decades of experience is that it's merely one piece of a package not any more or less significant than other aspects. By the notion that those who perform better on the exam make better employees I'm obligated to hire the 23 year old kid with no people skills and no ability to apply those correct multiple choice answers when sitting in front of a client who asks an open ended question over the person who's been successfully preparing taxes without a CPA for 8 years and has the highest rate of returning customers in my local area. Again to each their own but if I'm interviewing and my candidates boasts they passed all the exams in less than a year I want to know what else they accomplished in that year besides studying. I'm not talking from a big 4 perspective more from industry. But just like I think having a degree in accounting doesn't make someone a great accountant I don't think passing 16 hours of tests makes someone a great tax preparer. According to the state I am “qualified” to prepare taxes, but I recognize without experience passing the CPA means very little and refused to do it when asked, now I'm doing it for 12.50/hour just for limited experience. Still I would never take on a return more complex than a few w-2 while an enrolled agent might take on more complex returns

Licensed Massachusetts Non Reporting CPA since 2012
Finance/Admin/HR Manager

[Son]

oh, I see what you mean. I am not saying that experience doesn't matter; it obviously trumps CPA. I'm saying between two people with the same years of experience, one with a CPA one without I would choose a CPA. And between equally experienced CPAs I would choose the one who passed each section on the first or third time as opposed to someone who took it 40 times.

AUD - passed
REG - passed
BEC - passed
FAR - passed

[Author]

Replies