ECR June 2005 exam feedback

System · June 2005

I teach at Chichester College as well as running revision courses for ECR. In the next week or so I expect to be asked my view on the paper for feedback to the examiner Mr Nightingale himself. I completed the exam this morning. In terms of complexity, I think it was appropriate. I would most interested to see whether you agree or not with the following points:- 1. Tasks 1.1-1.3 were fine and well laid out 2. Task 1.4 would have been fairer if a) it was possible to look at the data on page 7 while completing the table on page 8 (just putting them on opposite sheets would have achieved this eg pages 8 and 9) b) the term "direct" in relation to assembly costs in my opinion is not appropriate and "specific" may have been better. Generally direct costs are thought as being costs that belong to a product, and so would not be overheads. 3. Task 1.5 I think the narrative references to "division" followed by the question reference to " department" was unnecessary. I think that one word would be better rather than chopping and changing. 4. Tasks 1.6-2.3 were fine and well laid out. 5. Task 2.4 was fine to start with, but the layout was tricky to follow in the "Machine hours allocated to:" row. I would rather see space to identify the optimal production mix in units (may be that's just me - but it would suit a production manager to know the units rather than just the time allocation) The rows below were fine 6. Tasks 2.5 -2.6 were fine, but I'm not sure what all the copying out needed to find the NPV in 2.5(a) proves in terms of the standards for this unit. If you agree with me OR disagree, please let me know before I feedback using a more formal channel Thank you <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="mailto:sandy.hood@chichester.ac.uk">sandy.hood@chichester.ac.uk</a>

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

I cant remember it that well now, have sat FRA since. But i do remember coming out thinking that it was easier than i imagined it to be. Some of the questions were worded in a way that made you really have to think on what they wanted. Which was a little unnerving. Reading peoples comments on the forum after the exam, it seems they (and me) were expecting a lot different from the new examiner chap! Am really looking forward to getting hold of the paper again later in the year and seeing the correct answers, as this is going to be the only way to really see how we got on, as 'pass' or 'fail' wont really tell us. Shaz

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

I personally didn't have any problems with the ECR exam, in fact I did not struggle any where near as much as I expected to. I think those of us who struggled to determine what was being asked, have relied too much on the format of previous exam papers rather than understanding the subject and theory behind the questions. Just repeating the same questions year in year out, with the names and figures changed is not a fair indication of our competence in the subject.

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

THIS IS GREAT. EARLIER ON IN THE WEEK, ANDREW HARRINGTON TOOK THE TROUBLE TO NOT ONLY READ THE SITE BUT TO COMMENT ON THE ECR PAPER - AND NOW THIS! AT LEAST IT SEEMS YOU'LL HAVE THE EAR OF THE EXAMINER. BUT PAST AND PRESENT EXAMINERS, AT INTERMEDIATE LEVEL IS REALLY GOOD TO SEE. I'M MUCH MORE A FAN OF FRA THAN ECR, BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I THOUGHT THE EXAM WAS VERY FAIR. MY TUTORS AWAYDAY TO SEE THE NEW EXAMINER DIDN'T BODE WELL. WE WERE TOLD THAT CHANGES WERE AFOOT. I DIDN'T EXPECT TO SEE A STOCK CARD, DID EXPECT SOME PROCESS COSTING AS WELL AS A MOUNTAIN OF MEMOS AS WE WERE TOLD THAT HE WAS BIG ON THEORY AND WANTING PEOPLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY KNEW. MOST PEOPLE IN MY CLASS THINK THIS WILL ONLY LEAD TO HIM FINDING OUT WHAT WE DONT KNOW. I WAS EXTREMELY ANNOYED AT THE UNDER RECOVERY QUESTION. IT THREW ME COMPLETELY. FROM LOOKING THROUGH THE FORUM, IT NOW SEEMS THAT IT WAS MEANT TO BE UNDER ABSORPTION. SO WHY DIDN'T HE JUST SAY THIS. I NOW THAT AN UNDER ABSORPTION RESULTS IN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE AND THUS A DEBIT TO P & L. TWO MARKS DOWN THE DRAIN BECAUSE HE CHOSE TO USE A WORD WE HADN'T SEEN BEFORE. IT'S LIKE USING SCARCE RESOURCES INSTEAD OF LIMITED FACTORS. IN THE HEAT OF THE EXAM, YOUR MIND DOESN'T REACT TO SEEING SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE'NT EXPECTING - PANIC SETS IN. 1.4 IS TOTALLY TRUE, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE INFORMATION (OPPOSITE PAGES WOULD SUFFICE). BUT HAVING TO TURN OVER............... I DONT THINK SO. THE DIRECT COSTS ONE THROUGH MANY OF US. I'M ONLY HOPING THAT WE GET MARKS FOR THE PARTS THAT WERE DONE CORRECTLY. I THOUGHT THAT THE REST WAS FINE. HERE'S A FINAL THOUGHT THOUGH. WHAT MANY OF US CANNOT COMPREHEND IS WHY WE NEVER GET A PASS MARK ONCE THE RESULTS ARRIVE. IT'S SIMPLY PASS OR FAIL. WE ALSO NEVER KNOW WHAT THE PASS MARK IS AT THE OUTSET, OR IT'S NEVER GENERALLY ADVERTISED! BUT MOST OF ALL, WHY DON'T QUESTIONS ON THE PAPER SHOW HOW MANY MARKS THEY ARE WORTH? I CANNOT FATHOM THIS ONE AT ALL. IF THEY DID, AT LEAST PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO CONCENTRATE ON THOSE QUESTIONS CARRYING THE MOST MARKS, WHILST STILL KNOWING THAT THEY HAVE TO SHOW COMPETENCE IN BOTH SECTIONS. FINALLY, THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO VISIT THE SITE AND GIVE US THE CHANCE OF HAVING A SAY, ESPECIALLY AT INTERMEDIATE LEVEL. IT'S MOST APPRECIATED. THANK YOU AGAIN, DAVID

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

Also, I agree that the table for the limiting factors question was not at all well laid out. These are not usually something I struggle with, finding them generally straightforward, but I was unsure what they wanted to see in parts of the table. Lynn

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

I'd be interested to know what happened to the process costing!!!

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

I started the Intermediate in February by distance learning - I thought the standard of difficulty in both papers was fair. I'm assuming that the examiners don't just want to see that you can learn stuff by rote but that you can also apply your knowledge to what may be slightly unfamiliar situations. I agree that there are improvements that could have been made to the layout and that all the 000s weren't necessary but these shouldn't have been insurmountable problems. I didn't find everything easy and I know that there are things that I've got wrong but overall, I didn't think the papers were any more difficult than past ones - I also didn't have any problem in understanding what under recovery meant - I thought that it was logical that this was the same as under absorption.

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

Hi Sandy SECTION ONE On the allocation/apportionment question I thought that they could have provided us with a perferated page to tear out if they couldn't have put the question next to the table. Also I don't understand why they put in the No of employees as we didn't need to use the information. I thought the question where you had to calculate the BOAR was confussing and worded very badly in general, I thought that under recovery was a bit unfair as this is normally refered to as under absorbtion in most texts. SECTION TWO The only concern I had in question two was as you said the table for the limiting factors in the machine hours allocated to I didn't understand why the asked you what product on the first colum as each product had it's own column, I got confussed on this part and put in the unit quantities as I to thought that information would be more applicable. Did not like the layout of this table at all. I thought the rest of the tasks were fair, although there were two many zeros, some people in my exam only had a small calculator and couldn't fit all the zeros on thier calac screen. Thanks for asking for our feedback

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

Same here, I passed both my ECR and FRA simulation without making any errors, now feel that I have failed the exams!

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

Hi Sandy, My initial thought after the ECR exam, was it was 'terrible'! However, thinking back now, it wasn't as bad as I first thought. The points that got me, were as follows the data on page 7, when having to complete the table on page 8, what was that about? 'under recovery', never heard of that term before! the 'machine hours allocated to' row - I did not know what was expected here, so wrote hours and unit eg, Product B 1,000,000 hours, 500,000 units. Far too many zeros! Surely students can prove they are competent without having to calculate with all those zeros, one zero missed on one line, would have messed up your answer! Regards, Fiona

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

well done your comment was spot on, we were told that he would not be making drastic changes in which he did, i think he should make the pass rate 60% or even 50% as it wasn't fair, i am very good at ecr and i done excellent in my simulation i passed my HND accounds with 9 merits but have probably failed this exam as i couldn't understand what he was asking for and they layouts of some questions were shocking, all tutprs should be sticking up for us and complaining.

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

Hi Sandy, I thought the chopping and changing with the wording and the layout of the exam wasn't very clear. Especially the 'under recovery'. I do understand that he wants to test student's knowledge and trying to catch us out, but I haven't come across anyone who knows the answer to this for definate. I would also like to point out that the layout of the Limiting factor question was also very unclear to me and many other's that I have discussed with. On the whole I feel that he could have used fewer produts as well as haveing a flow in the paper. He could still have tested student's knowledge and understanding by not giving proformas instead of the confusing ones he produced. That way student will definitely be tested on how weel they know their formulae and how to apply they to tasks. I for one am very confident in calculation limiting factors but was thrown off by the lasout of the proforma. Sandy, could you kindly ask him to be a bit flexible as this was a shock to our system as the change was more drastic than expected. I am sure I am not just speaking for myself but for everyone out there who has worked so hard, neglected their families for the past nine months only to feeling that you haven't tried enough or you are a disappointment. Gob Bless for asking our opinion before giving him a feed back. lollypops

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

i kinda agree with you but i thought the paper was a nightmare my lecturer has seen it and has complained about it so hopefully other lecturers wont like it and he will lower the pass mark, what do you think the pass mark on this paper will be?

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

I could not comment on layout as I have not got a photographic memory but the wording "under-recovered" in respect of overheads threw me and many other students judging by the comments on this forum. It is not in my BPP textbook anywhere and I still do not know the correct answer to the question.

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

Since the paper I have seen most of my students who sat ECR. One or two had similar complaints to many on this forum, concerning format and wording. However, the majority thought it was a very fair paper. My own thoughts were that it was not as different to past papers as I had expected. Perhaps a big factor is exam approach - particularly when it comes to tasks (or even words!) that you don't expect. If you let one word or one task upset you, then you are more likely to make mistakes on the bits you DO know. If you concentrate fully on showing the examiner what you DO know, and try not to worry about the bits that you don't know, you are far more likely to pass. I know this is easy to say, and that when you are sitting in an exam, your brain does funny things! However, if you try to adopt this approach, I really think you will reap the benefits. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> Andrew Harrington

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

The Under Recovery bit was very sneaky - I left it, did other bits then came back to it and twigged! I think the reason that they put information in that we do not need is to ensure that we are not just mechanically processing data - i.e we have to think about which figures to use and which to ignore. I prefer FRA but found that ECR easier!!! (I spent 45 minutes on my Trial Balance - it balanced in the end but thae panic of it not doing so easily, put me off the rest and I lost confidence in myself) The allocation/apportionment was a pain to have to keep flipping pages but not that much of a problem. Just glad it's over now!

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

 I'd have to agree with the general comments made in this forum. I found Section 2 was easier (as i prefer the contribution/unit questions and the ones that followed). The allocation question was a bit annoying as u had to turn the pages, but not unbearable. The 'Under recovery of fixed overheads' was nasty! haha. had no idea what to put, so i just waffled about the selling price being high enough to cover fxd o/d's. i couldnt find anything about that in the revision text books i have. I heard the reduce the pass rate if we all fall down on certain areas...dont know if that true or not. probably wishful thinking! Definately prefered ECR to FRA. Ben Parody

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

Yeah you and me both, i thought that the ECR was easier. Finance I've totally flunked, is it true that they maybe reducing the pass rate then? is that on both the ECR and FRA.. If so you know what they drop it to, it's 70% @ the mo isn't it? Does anyone else know?

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

 No i'm not sure bout the pass rate dropping (think so but have no idea to what it'll drop to) maybe im wrong. this is what the rest of the guys said in my class, apparantly the were chatting online too and got the info here <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> Apparantly if everybody gets the same questions wrong they drop the mark slightly - as it cant be a co-incedence that everyone gets the same ones wrong! but hey! hope for the best i definately messed up the FRA exam. nothing balanced - even went blank in question one! ha. i was hoping for an ETB in section two but we got the appropriation account instead. damn. when i read through it..it completly threw me. i think ill be bumpin' into my mate Jack Daniels this summer...quite frequently <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0"> Ben P

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

Hi Sandy, Just a tad narked off about the Process Costing, as in there wasnt any ! As I saw it (and can proabably vouch for the Intermediates at Salisbury College on this), we had nothing in the simulations, nothing in any past papers and yet it was a major chunck of the syllabus. BPP and Osbourne books both covered it pretty much in depth and as such I went into a lot of Abnormal Gains/Losses, Normal Loss, Process 2 transferred to Process 3 blah blah blah. I suppose it is no bad thing at the end of the day but come to exam time - nothing ! Also, any idea how much significance is placed on these memos that we had to write ?

System · June 2005

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

Mick Process Costing can be disproportionately covered by the books. I must admit I do think it will figure in a small way in future exams. I didn't expect it this time mainly because Les Nightingale had rather hinted this at a masterclass in the Autumn. Process Costing is much more significant on one of the CIMA units. I would not expect it ever to be a significant part of the ECR exam under the current examiner.

ECR June 2005 exam feedback

Comments

Categories