[RandomRandy]

Does anyone feel like Becker’s questions after the 2017 update are easier than they were before? I am currently studying for REG and it seems like that. I feel this way because I am doing significantly better in practice SIMs and progress tests than I was on the previous sections. I’m nervous that I am getting a false sense of security leading up to the exam. Anyone else experiencing this with the new materials?

FAR: 74 1/15/16, 72 7/2/16 -_-
BEC: TBD
REG: TBD
AUD: TBD

"Nothing is impossible to him who will try" - Andy Bernard

[Kodiak]

I feel the same but I'm not sure if it's the update vs. REG in general for Becker. I do like that I've got the Ninja MCQs because I am seeing more variety. Some of it is the same obviously but as a whole it seems more difficult than Becker. I've gotten two 96s on progress tests on Becker but am only trending around 73% on Ninja because of all the blaw that I only listened to lectures and haven't studied since then. Pushed that off till right at the end to really nail down the taxation aspects. I'm definitely having some anxiety over how the actual exam will rate compared to what Becker is dishing out. Test is Monday so I'll definitely find out soon.

AUD - 85
BEC - 86
FAR - 83
REG - 84

Coffee is my favorite coworker.

[IGOTTHEKEYS]

Glad to see someone else besides me feel the same way. I feel like the 2017 updated REG questions are way to easy. Nothing you would expect to be on the exam. Wondering if this is good or bad? Good, cause i know the material well? Bad, cause i might have to get ninja mcq to get me a better database for “Hard Questions”. The SIMS that becker has for REG are a complete waste. I would be the happiest person on earth if i got a becker sims, i mean they require zero to little brainpower. What do yall think?

[Anonymous]

I'm also studying REG with Becker and I agree. Not only are the questions shorted and simplified, but similar problems are provided right after each other (i.e. MCQ1: what's realized gain?, 2: recognized gain?, 3: basis?) and the answer for #2 would be mentioned in the answer explanation for #1 and etc.
The MCQ bank is also smaller and some sections have the SAME (every.single.word) question provided 2x as different CPA-xxxx numbers.

[RandomRandy]

Ugh, this has me worried now.

FAR: 74 1/15/16, 72 7/2/16 -_-
BEC: TBD
REG: TBD
AUD: TBD

"Nothing is impossible to him who will try" - Andy Bernard

[ageis0101]

I don't have experience with the old becker but did feel like the questions were not all that complicated in the new becker platform. That said, I've used the new becker platform exclusively to study for FAR and AUD and felt prepared, as far as MCQ goes, so have no reason to believe the REG/BEC wouldn't do an equally adequate job of preparing me. I don't pound out MCQ like many on this board, though, so take that as you will. I also don't know my scores on FAR and AUD yet…

Just my .02. I have heard and agree that many of becker's SIMs are sub-par as far as in comparison to the actual exam.

[RandomRandy]

After doing some Ninja MCQ, Ninja MCQ material is definitely harder than Becker. I feel like Becker really dropped the ball with the recent update. ugh

FAR: 74 1/15/16, 72 7/2/16 -_-
BEC: TBD
REG: TBD
AUD: TBD

"Nothing is impossible to him who will try" - Andy Bernard

[Author]

Replies