Study Zone

AAT Exam Review Board

What were the June 2010 exams like? Our Exam Review Board experts take a look at the latest sitting

Michael Brook
Calderdale College
The move to online exams will make this bi-annual report redundant and a thing of the past after the summer of 2011. Bearing this in mind a quick round-up of the candidates who sat this year elicited the following comments.
Foundation PLB was much as expected the only candidates with doubts were those who remained unprepared. The range of questions for this paper is well known and as usual the only complaints revolved around the control and suspense accounts. The first rule of revision is to learn those topics that are your weakest and most likely to appear – control and suspense accounts.
Intermediate paper 5, FRA, is more balanced which allows the candidate to better develop and demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the subject areas examined. Time seems to be against many candidates particularly the ETB another area where practice makes perfect. Some appeared to be struggling with basic concepts like accruals and prepayments and the old favourite of suspense accounts which should have been mastered at the Foundation stage. A balance sheet was not needed in section two which was a bonus following a basic partnership appropriation account which many candidates would have found straight forward.
Paper 6, ECR, was predictable in the topics to be covered the twist as always is how does the examiner require the answers. Those candidates who are mechanically minded would have started to struggle when explanations were required for the stock valuation methods. Limiting factors and contribution calculations are a problem for the unprepared and any accompanying explanation will stretch any candidate who is not prepared/
At technician level, paper 8 PEV, was considered fair with a majority saying they liked it having finished well within the time. Those who can structure reports and give concise answers will do well in this paper. The unprepared who did not read the tasks properly and do not understand variances will fair less well. Standard complaint was that there was a lot of writing – welcome to level four.
Finally to round off this summer experience, paper 9, PCR. As usual the examiner requires candidates to read everything and be prepared. Many appeared to be confused by section one and so gave up. The information required was in the scenario for those who can break down tasks. Section two was more acceptable but again preparation is the key to success and some candidates thought the paper was hard but fair.

Sandy Hood
Chichester College

Garden fertiliser made from sand and an active ingredient provided the scenario for section 1 of Tony Steven’s fourth PCR paper. Judging from some feedback from candidates on the AAT discussion forum many saw the fertiliser as manure. I was very pleased with the paper. Tony has now broken away from the predictability of the past and I trust that this will mean candidates have to apply budgeting to a scenario rather than merely re do an earlier question with a new set of numbers. Section one followed the format Tony has adopted of asking a series of short numerical tasks in task 1.1, and using the answers alongside new data to produce a budget in task 1.2. Task 1.3 was a costing exercise for an additional order involving a discount price. It followed logically and led into an appropriate email for 1.4.
Section 2 was based on customised key fobs with the four types of cost behaviour. The requirement for percentage variances was a new development. Indices were included as a separate task, I suspect to avoid multiple own figure rule marking which might be needed if it had fed into a budgeting task. I think this section will need further development or we could see candidates not treating the flexed budget with the same commitment as the operating budget in section one.
I give this paper definite thumbs-up, particularly for the fertiliser.
Fumpoline a trampoline manufacturer was the focus of the MAC paper. The basic structure of the paper was:
1.1 Production budgets over three months which I think most candidates should have been very much prepared for
1.2 A flexed budget using variable, fixed and semi-variable costs. I liked the way this led into task 1.3.
1.3 The way the business had responded to a cut price competitor was explored.
2.1 Was successfully presented in two parts, so that variance calculation errors in (a) would not impact on the narrative answers to (c)which were based on different data. The questions in (b) and in (c) both asked for direct material definitions which I felt was repetitive.
2.2 Looked at performance indicators and required nine numerical calculations.
It led into further data enabling a series of calculations in a ‘what if’ style scenario.
2.2b Could have specified whether the fixed cost per unit should be just the production fixed costs or all the fixed costs production.
Overall a definite thumbs up, and a special star for task 2.2(a)(i)!
Many lecturers ask their students to read the whole paper before starting their answers. Here the 7th bullet point in the data for 2.2 (b) gave the answer to 2.2 (a) (i) this justified all those RTQ classes. It also saved the co-operative student one calculation.
Almost all the ECR paper had been tested in the same format before. It started with the stock card and looked at the effect of stock valuation on prices. Direct labour cost had to be calculated, as did two overhead absorption rates. I like the reality of candidates being told the apportionment bases but I do worry that these tasks suit candidates who have learnt the technique by practicing over and over again rather than a genuine understanding.
The second section invariably tests the effect of cost behaviour on the total and unit costs. I wish semi-fixed costs could be erased from the terminology and replaced by stepped costs. While I’m on this topic PCR had a similar confusing term, stepped variable!! Perhaps an article on cost behaviour could help spell out the precise differences, here in PQ!!
I can see why the examiner, Les Nightingale wanted to have specific fixed costs for each product, but why apportion a total? At this stage in an accountancy student’s development he or she is coming to terms with keeping fixed costs as a total. Why not say that the 6gb memory stick had specific fixed costs that were attributable to its production? There would have been no one third/two thirds calculation but far more importantly no suggestion that these costs would need to be paid if no 6gb memory sticks were produced.
2.3 showed originality and should have helped separate the good candidates from the rote learners. It was reasonably straight forward but in a new format and Les earns my praise.
Capital investment questions tend to follow a standard format and would no doubt suit a more creative approach. The changing corporate payback requirement was good, but I am sure other ideas could be added here.
The danger of predictability is to lull candidates into a sense that all exams will replicate earlier ones. I’m sure candidates will have like this one, but I’d prefer to see less predictability.

Fiona Williams
Birmingham Metropolitan College
So, June 2010 review. The last one – well, not entirely true since there are transitional arrangements so the paper-based exams will stay?, for at least two sittings. It appears that most of the examiners have done a good job and the papers on the whole didn’t offer any variances from previous and the old saying that as long as you have prepared through using past papers, you will succeed, stands.
Normally, I would go through every paper and write a review, but since the same comments are coming over from students I have spoken to I thought I would review the whole sitting in one go. Thank you examiners! The format; question and answer, were consistent with previous papers. The areas covered, on the whole, were undeviating from previous. Students have left the exam room looking, dare I say, happy.
This in itself made me feel doing an exam review, a fraud. What sort of review is ‘everything was fine and everyone happy’? So, I thought I would do a longer term review. Over the last few years (of my being a member of PQ AAT ERB), PLB has remained probably the most consistent. If you look at the papers from 2003 to present, the format has changed quite a lot but this has been done on a slow progress and as such hasn’t caused any real problems. This makes for a good start to a students AAT career path. At Intermediate level, ECR has seen a slow introduction of process costing and then a rather sharp introduction to a new examiners style. FRA however appears to have a consistency approach with only slight variations on the themes over time. So, for the prepared student, Intermediate shouldn’t prove too many problems. Technician papers also appear to make this longer term review slightly consistent itself. DFS; lovely, straightforward, comfy pair of slippers, piece of cake .. are all past comments. PEV on the other hand, ‘if it is in the standards it is examinable,’ seems to have been gradually getting the idea of some consistency but still, in my opinion, is the most ‘radical’ paper. This has even been to the extent of arguments about subjects being covered at L3 appearing in the PEV exam. PCR has been described as unusual, with comments about its wording and the pressure of time prevailing. Interesting to note that this paper has moved more towards discursive answers, which will be interesting with the move to computer based testing. Both BTC and PTC appear to be fair but challenging. Changes in the syllabus, mainly CGT, changed the face of the paper, but this was done very smoothly.
Good bye PQ AAT ERB! Xx

Nisar Ahmed
BPP
BPP’s view on the last major paper-based sitting of the AAT exams was that they were in the main ‘very fair’. Both the Unit 3 and 30 exams gave good coverage of the standards and for the most part, question requirements were consistent with what students would have expected. However there were a couple of areas in the Unit 3 exam which students may have struggled with (the stock entry in task 1.5 and task 2.4 on the computerised system). Similarly for Unit 30, task 2.8 on sequential ordering of documents to send to a credit customer may have caused problems for some students as well as task 2.10 on recording a VAT refund.
The Unit 5 exam contained a little more than usual on the fixed asset register, but no real questions on the area of stock, whilst in section 2 we did not see an ETB task but instead a partnership question.
The Unit 6 exam contained a number of tasks that required candidates to explain concepts or their calculations by means of a discussion, which required a good understanding of the topics.
Students that practiced past exams for Units 8 and 33 would not have seen anything that they couldn’t tackle as both exams tested mainstream areas that had been examined on several occasions. However some students struggled with task 1.1 of the Unit 9 exam because it was felt that the question was unlike what had been seen in previous exams.
Unit 11 was ‘the same as what we have seen in the past’ although it did include carriage in and carriage out which students needed to remember from their Unit 5 studies.
For Unit 18 the more challenging aspect was the application of the opening year rules and the calculation of overlap profits. This is a topic that has not been examined often and causes considerable difficulty for students. Some students may also have struggled to explain the replacement of business assets relief.
The Unit 19 exam was overall a technically fair paper but the volume of material and the broad range of detailed rules tested made it harder than some previous papers.

Stuart Williams
Kaplan Financial
Its summer 2010, what does that mean... WORLD CUP (oh, and the AAT have changed the syllabus too), so it’s the last exam review board.....
Let’s see how many football analogies I can fit in!
FRA
This was a nice straightforward affair, although the inclusion of the bank account aspect in part one, is never any students favourite, other than this, however, there should have been no problems completing the first section.
Part two of the exam came with a nice P&L to complete, which should have pleased students, followed by a partnership profit split with retirement of partner (referee – yellow card!). Any well prepared student should have coped with this, as it is an often tested area.
So, a score draw, with a couple of cautions.
DFS
Difficult to comment(ry) on this one to be honest, DFS has always been relatively unspectacular, and this was no exception. As normal we have cash-flows, consolidations, ratios and journals thrown into the mix, with absolutely no excitement anywhere. A moderately prepared student should have done well.
A nil, nil with almost no goal-mouth action.
BTC & PTC
AAT tax exams are always the equivalent of Brazil v Spain in the world cup final, this year should be even more exciting given the new legislation regarding the temporary reintroduction of FYA’s.
BTC kicked off with a relatively straight forward question involving Capital Allowances that required a little knowledge of the new areas (new car rules), but then kicked into high gear with a nasty little question on rollover relief. The second half was more challenging with a more an Andy Townsend –esq analysis of the new CA rules that many students will have found difficult
PTC on the other hand was far more sedate, although the part two question involving chattels and rental income may have caused students more concern than an appearance by Robert Green at a Ming Vase catching competition!

[«all Studies]