[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?

[Ninja Juice]

Do you guys think NASBA takes this into effect in grading?

[Andyred04]

@Ninja Juice, well NASBA doesn't grade the exams but its hard to say whether the AICPA takes this into account when grading since the grading system is virtually a mystery. However, I would find it very hard to believe that they do. The AICPA wants more members so they can collect on those membership fees, therefore they wouldn't purposely fail someone who has taken the exam countless times. However, they also don't want to diminish the CPA license so they wouldn't grant it to someone who isn't qualified, therefore they wouldn't bump up someone's score just because they tried their best and have put in the time.

FAR: 80 (Gleim, Ninja Notes, Ninja MCQs)
REG: 87 (Gleim, Ninja Notes, Ninja MCQs)
BEC: 87 (Gleim, Ninja Notes, Ninja MCQs)
AUD: 8/27/16

PA Candidate

[Andyred04]

FAR: 80 (Gleim, Ninja Notes, Ninja MCQs)
REG: 87 (Gleim, Ninja Notes, Ninja MCQs)
BEC: 87 (Gleim, Ninja Notes, Ninja MCQs)
AUD: 8/27/16

PA Candidate

[payfields]

Whoa this kind of blew up.

I understand almost everyone's points.

I think the thing that bothered me the most in this situation was the many attempts PLUS the asking for a reprieve from the rules regarding the 18 month rolling period.

Oh well, to each his own.

[Stilgoin]

Getting a reprieve for ‘effort’ just pisses me off. It reminds me of the people who want their kids to play sports and not keep score. Real life is hard. As for the experience- am I missing something? Here in Tennessee you are required to have a year of accounting experience to become a CPA and two years audit experience to sign off on an audit or review. Is that not a standard practice across the board?

B | 62, 78
A | 73, 67, 79
R | 82
F | 59, 59, Waiting

Ethics | 93

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."
~Winston Churchill

“In a world full of critics, be an encourager."

[Trele6]

I'm curious if people would half-ass the exams less if there was a max number of tries? Again this only really punishes them as it is money out of their pockets.. However, it might free up a testing time for someone who is putting forth full effort.

First go at the CPA! Only using Becker
Reg / Nov 2015 - 87
Far / Apr 2016 - 79
Bec / May 2016 - 80
Aud / Aug 2016

[Anonymous]

@trele6 – you said it, the money keeps MOST people from half-assing these exams. $200'ish per exam, plus the money paid to your state board for the application fee, will separate out some of the serious/non-serious people.

I've often thought about this though. If someone has taken, say, 20 tests – five times for each part – and has come close to passing (10 or more scores in the low 70s, for instance),
wouldn't it be nice if they just gave them the benefit of the doubt? Yes, it would be. They really should evaluate such cases, although I don't think they come up too often.
Most people will give up after a certain number of failed sections and come back to it later and start over. Or, they just decide that the whole CPA thing is not for them and move off in a different direction.

I do think the 18 month rule should be changed to 2 years. Some people don't have time to pass all four in 18 months and if they had just a tad longer, they'd be passing a certain additional percentage of candidates.

[Trele6]

I made sure I busted my gut on these even though I had the opportunity to half-ass it. My company will pay for two tests of each section regardless if you pass or not. I didn't take any chances and tried to make sure I applied the proper amount of effort and time for each test.

First go at the CPA! Only using Becker
Reg / Nov 2015 - 87
Far / Apr 2016 - 79
Bec / May 2016 - 80
Aud / Aug 2016

[CPA2BEE]

In CA I'm pretty sure they'll let you keep taking the exam until you're clean out of money. I have no backup for that statement, just pure logic based off California being California 😀

FAR - 80
AUD - 82
BEC - 80
REG - 85

ETHICS - 90
EXPERIENCE - COMPLETE
Application for California license mailed 8/4/2016

[Son]

crazyleon, wouldn't it be nice to know that the surgeon who's going to operate on you failed his medical boards 20 times, but the examiners decided that making mistakes only 30% of the time is fairly acceptable? After all, you still have a 70% chance of not dying and recovering without major complications.

A strawman argument, but highlights an important fact: AICPA is already giving candidates plenty of the benefit of the doubt. The threshold is 75, and not 90 or 99.

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

[Anonymous]

@Son – a credential of ‘MD' or ‘board certified surgeon' (or FACS I think it's called?) is not quite the same as the CPA. I know doctors. You DO NOT get to do surgery unless you know exactly what the hell you are doing. Just because somebody has trouble answering tricky accounting questions on a standardized exam many times doesn't mean they can't do accounting. But if somebody has trouble operating on an artery or nerve or whatever, then no, they can't be allowed to get into the O.R. and cut open a living body. If you fail your medical boards 20 times, you won't be doing surgery. Or, if you fuck up procedures many times, your malpractice insurance will become so high that you will not be able to afford to practice medicine any longer. Or, the lawsuits against you for malpractice will result in financial ruin. This happens!
There are, in point of fact, many successful CPAs out there who failed the exam numerous times. I remember, just to name one of many examples, that the author of my Intro Accounting textbook was friends/acquaintences with the professor who taught the course. The professor said, “He flunked the CPA exam 13 times before finally passing it.” And he went on to author a very successful textbook on accounting. If someone has taken the prerequisite courses to qualify to sit for the exam, it is my belief that they eventually can pass it. It might take awhile, but it's possible.
I've often wondered why the CPA exam is as difficult and tricky as it is though, when the CPA credential is not even on a doctoral level, like the JD (law) is. Maybe it should be?!

[Son]

The exam is difficult because people work on multi-billion dollar computations potentially affecting their clients' ability to operate their business (and if the business needs to lay off people to stay afloat your mistakes can cost someone their job). Some CPAs decide to work for the government or other bodies that decide on policies affecting all companies across the board. Other CPAs audit financial statements that affect investor's decisions – and you may know that pension funds like Vanguard are some of the biggest investors in this country. If those fin statements lead people to put their money in companies like Enron lots of them might suffer substantial losses or even loose all their retirement savings altogether.

Yeah it's not the same as being an MD, it won't cost your your health. It might cost you your financial stability or independence though.

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

[Anonymous]

All very true…..but, there just seems to be a good amount of evidence that those who aren't necessarily CPAs can do all of those things just as well or better than a CPA. Which kind of leads some people to think that the CPA credential is not inherently all that valuable…except that CPAs do earn more money and have lower rate of unemployment and a certain modest level of prestige compared to other accountants in the vast sea of accountants out there. To quote one of my friends, “The CPA is just a networking tool and a prerequisite to moving up in the Big 4 or other big firms.” Perhaps that's why it's not a doctoral-level credential. I had plenty of friends in undergrad who were ‘C' students on paper but they were good with hands-on stuff. They got decent jobs.
Enron didn't happen because of incompetent CPAs. It was mostly because of cheating, fabricating, and lying CPAs of Arthur Andersen who abetted Enron. Anyhow, back to the subject of “number of failures” or the threshold for failure momentarily – it's a pretty debatable thing but the AICPA hasn't changed that in quite awhile. In the days gone by, you had to get at least a 50 on two parts of the exam in order to be able to even take the remaining two (or something pretty close to that, I'll have to ask my friend in Georgia who has been a CPA since 1984). Nowadays, they give a bit more leeway. I don't know if the exam was easier or harder then. Maybe easier since there were not so many regulations.

[Author]

Replies