[Anonymous]

I know the primary reason for the overhaul of the CPA exam is to try to get candidates to perform at a higher level.

I have worked as a cruncher of AR and AP and have done sales auditing for the past few years. Before doing those things, I was employed in an entirely different capacity and never did accounting. But, I was studying accounting for most of those years while not working as an accountant.

Could somebody explain to me WHY the AICPA is expecting that CPA candidates perform at the level of 2nd year CPAs? That doesn’t seem possible. How does a doctor in a hospital who just finished med school perform on the same level of a surgeon who has been at a hospital performing surgeries every day for two years? Or perhaps this is just part of their promo for the new exam format.

Is it because they don’t want new CPAs to just get on-the-job experience and instead just have all the stuff in their toolbox necessary to do the job before starting work? “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it” – I guess at some point it really got broken. But how is someone who has not even worked as a CPA supposed to perform at the level of someone who has? Makes no sense.

While I’m on the subject, I will say that the section of AUD I took a couple weeks ago did not feel much different from the previous version. I didn’t get a single question that felt like it tested higher order skills. Not a one. I kept expecting one to pop up on a testlet or in MCQ but none did. The *only* thing that felt different were the testlets and the optional break, which I did not even take. And splitting the testlets into MC-MC-3 SIM-3 SIM-2 SIM just felt kinda pointless. I don’t think it really makes a difference one way or the other as far as splitting up the SIMs that way. And the questions felt the same as all the practice ones I worked out of materials for the old version of the exam (2015-2016).

[Missy]

No I just think every few years they decide to up the threshold. I'm told at one time you didn't even need a college education to get a cpa (talking back in the 1960's). They increase this requirement then that (even the 150 credits is silly since many candidates are taking basket weaving to get to 150 having met the course specific requirements long before that). I imagine at some point you'll need a master's to get licensed, then it will be another line in the sand that moves.

Old timer,  A71'er since 2010.

Finance manager/HR manager

 

 

Licensed Massachusetts Non Reporting CPA since 2012
Finance/Admin/HR Manager

[Anonymous]

Yeah I suppose…. But it's odd that such an organization as the AICPA says that they want all people attempting the CPA license to perform like 2nd year CPAs. It's ridiculous! They can't mean it. And, I don't think they really do. It sounds like P.R. to me. Perhaps they just want people to study harder for the exam.

[Missy]

Can't say-I've never seen where the AICPA specified performance like a 2nd year CPA or if that was someone else's interpretation of the changes. But I will say with absolute certainty up until now at least the exam was never a great reflection of proficiency or the ability to apply the exam content in a real world setting.

Old timer,  A71'er since 2010.

Finance manager/HR manager

 

 

Licensed Massachusetts Non Reporting CPA since 2012
Finance/Admin/HR Manager

[Anonymous]

I have to disagree. I did receive a simulation that required me of higher skill level. At the end, I had to conclude my opinion. It was a tedious process.

[almasy]

It was during the AICPA & NASBA “Lunch and Learn: The Next CPA Exam” webcast that I first heard them mention that they wanted the new CPA exam to cover tasks expected of a second year CPA. They also know that most people who take the first exam are fresh graduates so there's that.

[Author]

Replies