dhuffman
offlineMember
I got my score report today but even tho it's in the new format it's still confusing as all hell. In the content area I was weaker in only one - framework and standard, rest were comparable; however in the bottom section: MC (60%) was weaker and Simulations (40%) was weaker.
How can a person be comparable in 4 out of the 5 areas which account for 70-90% based on thier breakdown and be weaker in both MC's and simulations? Plus I swear close to every other question was of a particular type.
eartzi
offlineMember
At least you got a 2011 score report. I took BEC (2011), and got a score report that was a 2010 one! They gave me a "comparable" on "Business Structures", did not have Corporate Governance, and did not have Written Communication.
I called the CA Board of Accountancy - no response back.
CPAMan
offlineMember
Those score reports are jokes. I once got a 73 on FAR and on my score report, it said I was weaker on everything. I once got a miserable 47 in AUD and on my score report, I was stronger in a few areas, comparable in a couple of others, and weaker in the rest.
Doesn't make any sense.
dhuffman
offlineMember
I finally got to talk to a real live person at my state board and it appears NASBA is having trouble with payment coupons....go figure. And they wonder about our "planning to pass in 18 month" ability. I did send an email to AICPA per the state boards suggestion on interpreting my score report. Attached a copy too so maybe they can actually answer coherently (something I doubt).
CPA2010TN
offlineMember
Yeah I got my score report for Auditing, 71. I was comparable in 3 areas, and stronger in 3 areas, and weaker in the TBS and I still failed. It is so frustrating! I might feel a little better if I knew what my actual "comparable" score was; like was it a 70 and comparable students made a 72? Also, how much stonger does "stronger" mean?? Just when I think the process can't get any more confusing they always come up with something....
You must log in to post.
