Why on earth are we doing this?!!?!?

I agree quite a lot with Liliana. Costing is already covered in the intermediate level, don't understand why is also covered so much in the technician level.

We are accountant technicians, not management ones, we should concentrate deeper into financial subjects, I'm working in practice and everyday I'm dealing with financial issues that I wish they were covered more in the AAT.

I agree with some elements.

However the AAT has to cover a wide range of industry's and individuals. It can not have lots of different exams to tailor everyones needs. It must provide a broad understanding of as many Financial topics as possible, os that when people come to do a further qualification eg CIMA CIPFA ACCA, they all have the same basic knowledge to develop.

I am doing PCR PEV and I studied PTC as well, none of these I will ever use again as I work in the public sector and will be studying CIPFA, (pass permitting in August). However I would not change them as if I get asked a question about how to improve systems i can give a well rounded answer, I also understand hwo the whole accounting system fits together, it may not always be neat but there is a flow.

Best of luck with your paper, I really dont like studying PEV I also have the exam on Monday.

If Actual is more than budget "SPEND LESS"........too easy i know :blushing:

Costing is a financial subject. I think you're taking too narrow a view of accounting. In my opinion, the AAT is there to provide a broad base on which to support further professional study if you want it. It does indeed cover a wide range of industries and accounting in general is a very broad field.

Even if you're concentrating on working in practice, I'd be surprised if your firm doesn't offer services beyond bookkeeping and/or auditing. Management consultancy, perhaps? Also, understanding how a costing system works is pretty useful if you have to audit one. You may not consider yourself into the 'management' side of accounting, but I don't think you can ignore it.

I do sympathise with (and also slightly envy) those whose work experience is of a higher level than what they are currently studying. But I wonder how many people that is true for? When I was doing the technician level (only two years ago), most of the class were studying things that would be more technical than they currently did in their work. You can see that as supporting your argument that what we were studying was irrelevant, but it also supports mine that studying something more advanced than what we were doing can be used to push towards advancement to a more interesting job.

EDIT: Londina posted as I was typing...

I would like to see an "introduction to business law" type unit. I can certainly see the use of that. And I do like the (optional) tax units and would support them being compulsory. Are you arguing that there isn't enough non-management stuff in the AAT? And that some should be taken out and replaced with other things?

Don't you feel that the Drafting Financial Statements unit is enough financial at technician level? Just to play devils advocate for a second: we did financial statements at Intermediate in the FRA unit, isn't that enough?

I really don't see what the problem with performance ratios in DFS is. What's wrong with analysing (as well as preparing) financial statements?

What shocks me most is the lack of Ethics and Practise routine simualtions It seems a fraction is covered compaired to ACA and ACCA plus the fact that a majority of us do work in practise so some legal aspects for technitions should also be covered

The AAT syllabus is pretty much spot on IMO. (Though I agree some basic law would be nice). It is a base accounting qualification. After you have done your AAT you should have an idea of what area of accounting you would like to pursue in both your working life and also with regard to further study.

Performance ratios feature in DFS and PEV because they are relevent to both costing and financial accounting. Is remembering a few formulas really that big a deal?

If you want to do Costing you should be doing CIMA? That would be jumping in at the deep end somewhat? What about the thousands of people who are new to accounting who would like a sample of everything before they decide what direction to take? Again, AAT = base qualification.

OP, basically you don't think costing should be in the syllabus because YOU don't like it.

EDIT: seems me and Mosely (Sugar Shane?) posted at the same time. Didn't mean to echo him/her.

oh nice 2 see i am not alone with this costing problem ..i have passed all the other papers very convienently and with a lot of interest invloved into it... but when it comes to costing i had no interest at all .. the only reason i am doing it is just because of 1 exam i cant give up the whole course .. strongy agree here with every body there should have been some other options

I'm suprised there's no maths skills test. It would certainly help with costing.

PCR is what's holding me up, and again am uncertain if I passed after yesterday, I really don't like it, and it's made me realise that I want to do ACCA rather than CIMA, if I study further. So it's been useful in a way as now I can see more clearly what I would want to study and what I wouldn't. I quite enjoyed DFS. The financial side is much more clear cut, with rules that make sense, management is more ambiguous and messy, not for me.

Never done an audit in my life!