Study Zone

ECR and PEV December 09 exam reviews

Sandy Hood of Chichester College takes a look at what the AAT examiners did to you in ECR and PEV

The December ECR exam had many regular questions that have featured over recent diets. The examiner gets a definite thumbs-up from me for probably the best ever limiting factor question I’ve ever seen on the paper. Hopefully he will record that this was answered well.
Anyone who had seen the May article in Accounting Technician should have found the question on a group bonus a gift. I was pleased to see narrative questions testing understanding.
I suspect that the overhead analysis may be giving markers a little to think about. The first apportionment calculation is different according to the type of calculator you use!! Not a big difference, but standard calculators round off and then calculate from the rounded off value giving a small difference to the scientific equivalents. I would hardly blame proof readers for this. I only noticed it when using the task with current students. Les Nightingale knows I’d far rather he referred to overheads absorbed journal entries by the account name, but I guess I’ll have to bite my lip over task 1.6 (b) which I otherwise liked. Section 2 had two points I must criticise. Variable cost per unit of £3 but a prime cost of £4! My answer assumes that the variable cost is an overhead and I hope other students did the same. This should have been corrected at the proof reading stage. I liked 2.2 and thought it was a good test of marginal v absorption costing, and not easily predicted.
Task 2.4. was the first abnormal gain question on process costing. Why did no one stop a question getting through to exam halls where 500 kgs somehow manages to produce 515 kgs plus another 25 kgs of waste? The examiner gets a thumbs-up, but the thumb is down as far as the proof readers are concerned!
The December PEV exam was a good test of the key elements of the course. The scenario was based on a manufacturer and distributor of coffee and looked at the possible development of a coffee machine.
The numerical tasks were fair and ought to give a good student the opportunity to demonstrate key knowledge and understanding of the unit. I liked the mix aspect of the variance analysis. This had previously appeared in relation to insurance claim handlers in an MAC paper, so well prepared candidates may well have been ready for the implications.
There were five written tasks which seems quite a lot of writing, but very often it is the written task that provides the best opportunity to separate those who can learn techniques from those who genuinely understand the subject.
I felt task 1.2 was fine until the task was broken into three sub-tasks. This left a possibility of answering both part a and part c with the same facts about a change in the mix of beans used to make the coffee. It may well lead to a change in the marking scheme.
Issues such as ideal and base standards, and time series and index numbers are peripheral topics that are tested of a cycle of exams. They had their turns.
Section two tested ratios of two coffee machine ideas and then brought in a linked product idea when specially made capsules could only be used on one machine. Overall I gave this paper the thumbs up.

AAT STUDENTS SAID…
PEV
“I feel disappointed with Section 1 questions after all the effort I put in to prepare myself for the exam.”
“Section 1was Double Dutch to me. I have been studying so very hard for the last few months and it is now for nothing!!!”
“I was totally baffled by the PEV exam in section 1.”

[«all Studies]