Basically, if too many people are getting through the professional exams then the goalposts get moved.
If 50% should have been a pass this might get moved to say 53% which would effectively subtract 3% from the marks earned. Therefore, you could score 52% (a pass) but your results state that you actually got 49% (a fail).
Now to me, whilst I understand the reasoning behind not wanting too many new accountants to hit a depressed jobs market at the same time. I also feel quite agrieved that so many pay a lot of money to study, pass the exams but without explanation that their marks have been adjusted are not awarded a pass mark.
The figures that I quote are marginal but I see no reason why this could not just as easily be an imposed 10% variance if too many people do too well.
The article was specifically talking about ACCA (so particularly of interest to me who was one of the many 49%ers) but I wonder if this also spreads to other bodies.
Are there any other discrimations being imposed such as variances imposed on a country by country basis favouring some societies / countries over others?
The last sentence isn't intended to imply any form of favouritism or racism, simply are we actually playing on a level playing field in that if one countries students have an attainment level significantly below anothers are the lesser countries results being adjusted to compensate as in a global economy we are competing directly on the basis that a qualification in one country should mean exactly the same as the same qualification in another.
What are other peoples opinions?
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
I agree Shaun that you don't want to many newly qualified accountants (or anything for that matter) hitting the job market at one time. My only concern is if there are a high number of students this year, and as such the pass mark is pushed to 60% and next year there are fewer and so the pass mark is dropped to 50% that would surely mean rather than letting the most qualified into the market you are going to get a less educated caliber of people this year than last.
Do you need to start asking what year your accountant qualified and what the pass mark was?
I hope the year I finally pass there's only a few.
so, on job applications in future it will not just be the qualification but the year and country of each pass!
Accountancy qualifications would seem then to go the way of French wines... Ahh, P3 2008 passed in Kuala Lumpar, a particularly good vintage and worth two P3 2009's passed in Brazil. (lol).
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
GCE 'O' and 'A' levels used to be graded in this way eg if it was deemed 1000 get an A grade then the mark for the A would be limited to the top 1000 in any one examination - one year it could be 98% another it could be 95% etc. This grading system was better at determining the top students and was why so few people actually went to University. However when it was deemed that 50% of students should go to University the grading system was changed to ensure that more students gained top marks by reducing the mark per grade (I hope that makes sense). Hence nowadays Universities have great difficulty in selecting the 'best' students as so many gain an A that an A* has to been created, wonder how long it will be before A**. This type of system does devalue qualifications therefore I think ACCA is to be applauded for maintaining the "old" system.
