Tag: NASBA

CPA Exam Quitter Sends Epic Hate Mail to AICPA, NASBA

Note: I am choosing not to spell or grammar check this letter A) because last time Braddock dared to do the same, you guys slaughtered him for being a dick and B) as much as I hate truly awful grammar (a few steps below the typo-filled crap Caleb we writes here), I think the point is sufficiently expressed if you can simply ignore some of the obvious errors. In fewer words: we get it.

The following rant is presented without comment. Please note that its publication here does not constitute an endorsement ssed therein. Caleb took the exam back in the day with stone tablet and cave drawings of journal entries and I, as we all know, have not and will not sit for the CPA exam so neither of us have the experience to draw from here to form an opinion. Over the years, I have heard of issues at Prometric but usually along the lines of minor software failures that did not really impact the candidates’ experiences. I would be curious to get feedback from you all, the dedicated capital market servants, who have had examination snafus seriously impact your momentum.

For this guy, it was enough to get him to quit.

I remind you all here that a lot has changed since 2007. The AICPA and NASBA are getting better at communicating and always looking for ways to improve that process.

May 19, 2011

Subject: Uniform CPA Exam (glitches & bugs in exam software)

To Whom This May Concern,

My name is Matthew Grosso, former C.P.A. exam candidate back in 2007 who had experienced tremendous difficulties with the software that powers the Uniform Certified Public Accountant exam (or “C.P.A. exam”) as well as various communications with NASBA (National State Board of Accountancy). My hardship has been well documented in a section below, titled “Timeline”….however, first, I would like to explain the nature and intent of this letter. In short, this letter is a call to action — a voice if you will — of many frustrated C.P.A candidates who have studied long and hard to attain the prestigious C.P.A designation, but have tragically fallen short because of undocumented barriers to entry into the profession; specifically, “software glitches and bugs” in the C.P.A. testing software package as well communication hurdles with NASBA.

Although I withdrew my candidacy a couple years ago, I continue to read and hear about candidates’ exam hardships (and, I’m not referring to passing difficulties). The fact is, candidates adversely affected by C.P.A. software issues are focused more on passing the exam rather that drafting grievance letters. Moreover, many distressed candidates are uncertain to who exactly they should contact regarding the nature of a testing issue…..is it NASBA, the State Board, the AICPA, Becker Convisor, or the Prometric Testing Center? The C.P.A. is daunting enough on a stand-alone basis, but for a candidate to experience a computer failure and have to blindly navigate a maze of reporting lines, in hope of finding answers to complex questions, is something entirely different. Because candidates are more concerned with “candidacy” and long busy season hours (as they should) and less so with detective work and grievance letters, is in my opinion, the reason difficulties with the software powering the Uniform C.P.A. exam has been grossly understated. Still, even if a handful of grievance letters had indeed made its way upstream to NASBA, The State Board Committee (SBC), The AICPA Board of Examiners (BOE), I’m curious why the C.P.A exam governors failed to address the software glitch/communication issues in an expeditious manner……or have decided to pull the plug on computerized testing altogether? Even if these issues were still in the discovery phase, I would have expected NASBA/AICPA to have contacted current and former candidates regarding the pervasiveness of the issue; the quality control time needed to correct the issue; and more importantly — a remedy.

Given consideration of the facts mentioned above – as a former (unlicensed) candidate, I’m left wondering whether the BOE has specific controls in place to detect issues with the software powering the C.P.A?, If so, whether the controls are working as designed with issues being sufficiently and timely communicated up the reporting hierarchy? I’m certainly aware of the pervasiveness of the exam software issue (and have facts to support it!), but perhaps the BOE isn’t! Perhaps the BOE is aware of the software issue, and has considered the issue to be statistically, De minimus. Even if the later was true, why weren’t candidates (like myself) notified of the shortcomings of the computerized testing approach and the potential for its effect on licensure?

Given my understanding of the imperfections of the Uniform C.P.A. exam and the organizational structure of The AICPA, NASBA and its affiliates, I’m under the impression the COE and its working cabinet has grossly underestimated the frequency of the glitches and bugs in the C.P.A. software – specifically the essay portion. Having made a significant time and financial investment in the program, I firmly believe my experience would have been different had the operational deficiencies in exam software been attended to, and NASBA – Candidate communications (via “NASBA Candidate Care”) fostered stronger ties.

In closing, as a friendly recommendation I would appoint a “Director of Customer Support” to research candidate concerns and help implement corrective action. This appointment would certainly enhance communications inside and outside the organization, thereby protecting the interests of candidates and prevent undue hardships in the C.P.A. community.

Regards,

Matthew M. Grosso

So? Would anyone else care to share their “undue hardship” with the class?

International CPA Exam Applications Now Being Accepted By Participating State Boards

With just three months before international CPA exam testing is scheduled to debut, let’s hope the state boards can get to it and have everyone rolling in time.

Via NASBA:

In March 2011, in conjunction with the AICPA and Prometric, NASBA announced the opportunity for international administration of the Uniform CPA Examination to be offered in Japan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates.

The CPA Examination application process is basically the same for U.S. and international candidates. In order to qualify to take the CPA Ehe U.S., candidates will have to establish their eligibility through a State Board participating in the International CPA Examination Administration program. Click the following link for the list of participating State Boards.

Before applying to sit internationally, please read the Candidate Bulletin and the International Examination Informed Consent. Candidates should then visit the Jurisdiction Map in the CPA Exam section of the NASBA website for information about eligibility requirements and the examination application process for the jurisdiction in which they wish to apply. Prospective candidates must select the U.S. jurisdiction to which they will apply, contact the Board of Accountancy (or its designee) in that jurisdiction to obtain application materials, submit completed applications and required fees as instructed, and once deemed qualified, schedule the examination. After receiving the Notice to Schedule, you may then register to take the examination in an international location through the NASBA website.

Note: After the registration process is complete for each examination section, you will need to wait at least 24 hours before you schedule your appointment. Initially, the examination will be offered internationally during a one-month testing window per calendar year quarter.

Regardless of which Board of Accountancy has declared you eligible for the examination, in addition to paying any domestic testing fees, you must pay additional fees for each examination section you plan to take internationally. Those fees per examination section are:

AUD: $292.85
BEC: $314.90
FAR: $292.85
REG: $314.90

Certain jurisdictions have specific rules and requirements to sit for the Uniform CPA Examination, as well as qualifying for CPA licensure after passing the examination. Before applying in any jurisdiction to take the CPA Examination in an international location, be sure to read the jurisdiction’s Information for Applicants on the website. It may also help to visit the Board of Accountancy’s website of the jurisdiction where you wish to apply. Further details about international administration of the examination can also be found on the international testing FAQ sheet that is available on the AICPA Uniform CPA Examination website.

For candidate convenience, NASBA has recently extended call center hours and created an international number. The hours of operation and contact phone numbers are as follows:

• Call 1-800-CPA-EXAM Days and hours of operation: Monday – Thursday, 8 a.m. to 2 a.m., Eastern Time, and Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Eastern Time (UTC -5).
• Call 1-855-CPA-GUAM or 671-300-7441 (international candidates). Days and hours of operation: Monday – Friday, 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., Japan Standard Time (UTC + 9).

Well let’s see, let’s pretend we’re an international CPA exam applicant in Ohio testing for the first time. If we want to sit in Japan, we can look forward to spending $140 for the application and $500 for each section of the exam. Assuming we pass the first time through, that’s $2140. I guess it’s cheaper than flying to the U.S. to test with plane tickets and hotels and all that stress.

Keeping Promises, the AICPA and NASBA Remind Candidates About Late Scores

We’re sure no one wants to see a repeat of the first quarter’s scoring debacle but since we didn’t enjoy being called lots of names last time we dared to bring it up, we’re not going to discuss that.

Instead, let’s see the email NASBA sent out to candidates last week. It’s good to see them making the effort exactly as the AICPA told us they would, and we hope that this will cut down on any confusion/insults/whining in the two quarters left before the new, faster scoring system is in place.

Score Release Reminder, April/May 2011

Dear CPA Examination Candidate:

This message is to remind candidates of the score release timeline for 2011.

Because of the significant changes made to the content and structure of the Uniform CPA Examination in 2011, there have been comparable changes to the scoring process, all of which require more extensive psychometric analyses of both test questions and candidate performance for the first three windows of this year. Sufficient data needs to be aggregated for the required additional analyses and the data must come from actual, operational exam results. For each testing window, we have to acquire a sufficient sample size of exam results in order to perform the required analyses and score the exams properly. This process takes time. Therefore, for the first three testing windows of 2011, scores will only be released after the end of each window.

For candidates who have tested in the April/May 2011 testing window, barring unforeseen circumstances, the AICPA will release the scores to NASBA within a 7-10 day period beginning the third week of June 2011.

We anticipate that by the October/November 2011 testing window, we will have aggregated enough data so that the additional analyses won’t be necessary, and scores can be processed on a rolling basis, and hence more frequently. We encourage candidates to visit the Psychometrics and Scoring page on the Exams Web site for reliable information about score release and the scoring process. The AICPA does not endorse or support any other Web site or forum for disseminating information about the Uniform CPA Examination.

We won’t take that last bit personally since we are pretty sure it was not a dig at us; we try our best to keep you guys informed and always pointed towards the AICPA’s own material on any CPA exam subject we cover here. Well, except on the subject of drugs, there’s no candidate bulletin on getting hopped up on doctor dope to study for the CPA exam (rightfully so).

NASBA Reaches Out to Japanese CPA Exam Candidates Impacted by March Disaster

By disasters, we don’t mean that thing that happened with scoring.

When Katrina hit in 2004, NASBA granted affected CPA exam candidates an automatic extension. This time around, they are asking Japanese CPA exam candidates directly affected by the earthquake and tsunami disasters to contact them for assistance.

Here’s the official word from NASBA:

Our hearts go out to those in the Japan area who are dealing with rebuilding their lives and communities after the recent earthquake and tsunami disasters in that region. Japanese candidates who are scheduled to test in the near future, (United States or at our Guam Testing Center) and who may not be able to do so now due to the logistical issues that the disaster caused, should know that we are here to assist during this time of uncertainty.

Japanese candidates who may need to request an NTS extension and/or rescheduling, should contact NASBA’s Candidate Care department by emailing candidatecare@nasba.org and we will handle each concern on a case by case basis as we receive requests.

We recommend that all concerns of this type be directed to NASBA’s Candidate Care department. For this particular issue, only those affected by the earthquake/tsunami disaster should email us at candidatecare@nasba.org.

We assume that last line means “please don’t use the Candidate Care department to yell at us about scores” but did not ask to be sure. Let’s just pretend it did just to be safe.

Let’s Have an Adult Discussion About CPA Exam Scores

Since the last time I dared to bring this issue up I was insulted personally and professionally, I’m going to approach this very carefully. Starting with a few statements of my position:


First, I have the utmost respect for those who first suffer through a college accounting education and then decide to pursue a CPA. It’s not an easy thing to do and the experience only gets worse when you add kids, work and a life to the mix. I get that. I’ve suffered through it at the side of thousands of CPAs in the last four years and, empathetic jerk that I am, I absolutely feel their pain. I’ve been the crying shoulder and the therapist as well as tharing that with CPA exam candidates has been a real joy in my life. Mostly because I’m not the one who actually has to go through it.

Second, I believe 18 months is plenty of time to get through the exam. For those who have struggled 2, 3, even 5 years with this thing, it is not at all unreasonable for me to suggest that perhaps you should find another line of work. That doesn’t mean struggling candidates shouldn’t be offered support but at some point, you have to ask yourself if the Universe is trying to send you a very strong hint. That’s fine, the AICPA is doing their job if not everyone can pass. This isn’t a kindergarten playground exercise in how everyone deserves a trophy no matter how bad their performance, this is a professional license and it is a privilege, not a right.

That being said, I was not expecting the floodgates of CPA exam candidate hell to come bursting forth on Monday when I addressed a note the AICPA wrote to candidates. In trolling NASBA’s Facebook page and getting additional feedback from candidates (beyond the “screw you, AG, you’re not a CPA” comments), it’s clear candidates are livid about this whole scoring thing. There’s no other explanation for otherwise reasonable future CPAs lashing out like they did, since we all know professionals aren’t prone to that kind of behavior out of habit.

So the first thing candidates should be doing instead of snapping at NASBA, the AICPA and me is to write down their thoughts and send them to the AICPA and NASBA. The first three quarters of 2011 are basically practice for a new, improved scoring process the AICPA hopes to debut at the end of the year and if candidates stick to yelling at accounting bloggers, the important people who can really make a change aren’t hearing them. Be clear, be concise and be honest. What would you like to see changed? What do you feel is unfair? How do you feel about this entire process? Try to keep emotion out of it (save that for your therapist, your spouse or your best friend) but be explicit about the stress this has put on you if you feel it is necessary. Remember that complaints are easy but offering solutions or feedback that can help them improve stands the best chance to change things. I assure you all that the AICPA and NASBA are listening, they just might need to block it out if it’s mostly profane vitriol and hardly any common sense. I highly doubt that either agency planned for this to get so ugly, and if they are at all like me, probably didn’t expect it would be the meltdown it was. So keep that in mind when you are yelling at them like the intelligent professional I’m sure you are.

Speaking of which, we caught up with a real live intelligent professional who asked to keep her firm name out of this but wanted to weigh in regardless. A seasoned professional when it comes to the CPA exam from her work as an HR manager for a mid-sized Bay Area accounting firm, she is also a CPA exam candidate and has been vocal in expressing her dissatisfaction with this scoring debacle.

To her, the issue is customer service and communication, or rather lack thereof. She told us:

I advise candidates on everything about licensure (e.g. application process, review courses, changes to the exam, score releases, and serve as the unofficial firm “nag” reminding people they need to get or stay on the licensure path). In both roles, it is my duty to stay informed and I really try my very best to do so. To that end, this is why I felt so frustrated with NASBA’s recent post on Facebook. I didn’t receive the AICPA memo about the delay of scores for Q1-Q3 back in October of 2010. I went through my emails and see I have only received 3 email messages from NASBA and nothing from the AICPA. One was a 11/18/10 email from Prometric and NASBA about adding additional time slots in Q4 of 2010 to accommodate the high volume of candidates scrambling to avoid IFRS, and one on 1/4/11 announcing CBT-e was launched on 1/1/11. The last message contained 6 links, including sample tests, a tutorial, and a link to their October 21, 2010 message [a letter to the state boards that explained the new scoring process]. Obviously, I didn’t click on all the links until today. I was more focused on the tutorials.

Nowhere in the body of the message does it read the scores would be delayed. My bad for not reading the ‘footnotes’ but, in my humble opinion, later scores is a material item that should be separately stated in the ‘financial statements’/email message.

The communications from NASBA need more empathy. These candidates are overachievers who are probably failing at something for the first time in their life; emotions are automatically running high. Candidates are spending a lot of time, money and now even more money because they had to go out and buy brand new materials to be ready for the 2011 exam. We were sold on the idea that these changes would result in faster score reporting – God knows we were already at our wits end that it took so long for a machine to grade the old CBT- and here we are slapped with another round of delays. And they have the audacity to say they told us this back in October. Really?

As of the writing of this post, 9,491 FAR scores and 11,828 REG scores have been released by the AICPA.

The issue continues and we will happily continue covering it here so long as you all care. Any and all input (including gripes and general bellyaching but not insults towards the author or this website) is welcome in the comments.

AICPA Has Released REG Scores to NASBA for the Jan/Feb Testing Window

It’s been two days since they released FAR so at this rate, all scores should be out by Tuesday. Who wants to bet unforeseen circumstances delay BEC a tad longer? Just a guess.

Anyhoo, you’ve waited weeks (or months) for ’em, here they are.

All 32 CPAES states should have scores posted online within 24 hours (though preliminary candidate feedback is that this process is faster than it used to be). The only CPAES states which may take 24-48 hours to release online are Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska & Puerto Rico. Check with your state board of accountancy if you are in a non-CPAES state.

The AICPA’s Note to Pissed Off CPA Exam Candidates on Scoring

The AICPA shared a note on Facebook the other day that was also shared by NASBA and brought up an interesting conversation full of frustration, anger and misunderstanding. The comments by candidates show how important it is to take information at face value and be sure you are not reading too much into what is shared by those who don’t have all the answers.

Before we get to that, let’s get to the note:

Thanks again to everyone who has been asking about the score release timelines. It’s an important topic and we appreciate the feedback. As a reminder, for anyone who hasn’t had the chance to visit our website, over the past year we ��������������������to state boards, scoring timeline FAQs, and provided an in-depth white paper describing how the Exam is scored, all available at the CPA Exam website. And if you’re interested in a refresher about the eligibility requirements, including the 18 month timeline and instructions for scheduling your Exam, the updated Candidate Bulletin from NASBA contains the information you need.

It also appears that there is some confusion about what it means to administer a “high stakes” test. For those of you who don’t know, the Uniform CPA Examination is a high stakes test. That means that there is a direct consequence of passing (or failing) the Exam – in our case, that consequence is meeting one of the requirements to obtain your CPA license. Becoming a licensed CPA carries with it legal authority, and an obligation to protect the public interest. That’s why the Exam must make valid, accurate assessments of examinees. The outcomes are too important.

Making those valid, accurate assessments is what this scoring process is really about. In high-stakes testing, any time an exam undergoes a major revision (as with the introduction of CBT-e), best practices dictate that scoring must be revised as well. That means that sufficient data needs to be aggregated for the required additional analyses (of both test questions and candidate performance) that must take place. This data must be taken from actual, operational exam results.

To our candidates, like you, this means that we have to acquire a sufficient sample size of actual exam results in order to perform the required analyses and score the exams properly. This process takes time and that’s why we are only able to release scores at the end of each window, for the time being. After three windows, we will have aggregated enough data so that additional analyses won’t be necessary, and scores can be processed on a rolling basis, and hence more frequently.

We hope this information provides the clarity that many of you are looking for. Thanks again for engaging in this conversation.

The AICPA was very clear long before the beginning of 2011 that scoring would be changing this year and has let us all in on its plan to accelerate the scoring process for the last window of the year. This information is freely available on the AICPA’s website and is digested here on Going Concern for those of you “too busy” to check for yourselves. But for many, this simply isn’t enough. Candidates who cut the 18 month window too close feel cheated and some are even expecting some sort of accommodation by the AICPA. What they seem to be missing is that even if they get their scores at the end of this month, they are not getting them any earlier or later than they could have under the Wave 1/Wave 2 scoring rules.

While many of us are in the business of helping candidates make sense of the wealth of CPA exam information out there, it is imperative to remember that some of what we do involves making educated guesses. Case in point, earlier this month Jeff Elliott at Another71 predicted scores would be out March 17th. Up until now, he’s been pretty dead on about score release dates so while there is no reason to believe he’d be wrong this time, it’s important to keep in mind that his score predictions are just that, predictions. He isn’t privy to information the rest of us aren’t, he has simply been doing this long enough to have a good sense of what to expect.

When March 17th came and went, candidates were outraged that they still didn’t have their scores. Some even took to NASBA’s Facebook page to complain. Said one candidate “A piece of advice for next time, don’t come out with this statement and expect us CPA candidates not to be frustrated and angry when you yourselves stated ALL SCORES would be released March 17th when you obviously knew that was never going to happen!”

But the AICPA never said that.

As of this morning, scores still haven’t been released and candidates are likely still pissed off that they were told March 17th but that isn’t the AICPA’s fault and it isn’t Jeff’s fault either. Such is the nature of the beast and surely candidates know going into this that anything can and will happen.

CPA Exam Debuts Internationally in August

For those of you interested in taking the CPA exam in wild locales such as Bahrain or Kuwait, wait no longer, the CPA exam is officially international beginning August of 2011.

Initially announced along with CBT-e, international testing appeared to be slated to begin in January but security issues and further testing necessitated the delay.

So far Bahrain, Kuwait, Japan, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are the only countries in which the exam will be administered. After a long two year analysis, NASBA, AICPA and Prometric determined those areas to meet their stringent safety and security guidelines.


We know what you’re thinking. Bahrain?! According to the three agencies, candidate volume demand as demonstrated by candidates from those countries taking the exam in the United States was a huge factor in deciding where to administrate the exam. Sure, Japan seems like a no-brainer but up until now, international candidates have been forced to obtain a visa to physically appear in the United States for their exams, often for marathon sessions of more than one test in a two or three day period.

Other factors in deciding which countries included:

• The ability to deliver the Exam without legal obstacles.
• Security threat to the Exam (both physical security at test center and intellectual property security of Exam content) assessed at levels equivalent to those presented domestically.
• Existence of established Prometric test centers.

Other countries were analyzed ahead of this announcement but I know of at least a handful that were determined unfit for test administration based solely on security issues in those countries. Being proprietary and more heavily guarded than Colonel Sanders’ 11 herbs and spices, protecting CPA exam content was likely one of the largest concerns involved in taking the exam international.

While candidate volume and interest in the exam is also high in countries like India and Korea, security concerns are equally as high (if not higher), therefore excluding these areas for the time being. My understanding is that the AICPA is open to expanding international testing in the future and just with CBT-e, will be monitoring the situation closely after launch, ready to adjust based on results. International candidates will still have to apply with the state board of their choice and are invited to use NASBA’s Accounting Licensing Library to search for a jurisdiction in which to apply.

Why Did Prometric Get Fined $300,000 by NASBA in 2010?

David A. Costello, CPA, President & CEO and Michael R. Bryant, CPA, CFO of NASBA jointly and severally stated that NASBA’s 2010 financial statements did not contain any untrue material statements and their auditors, Lattimore Black Morgan & Cain, PC seconded that so obviously the following is all accurate. We looked ourselves. Not being professional financial statement ninjas, however, we invite you to take a peek for yourself here.

The good news for NASBA is that total consolidated revenue in Fiscal 2010 was $33.7 million compared to $31.4 million in Fiscal 2009, an increase of 7.3%. There were more CPA exam candidates as well as a new state added to NASBA’s CPAES program, which does the work of state boards of accountancy by processing CPA exam applications.


Interestingly, though my grandparents have been eating Alpo for the last two years thanks to Ben Bernanke and I’m earning a little under half a percent on my savings, NASBA must have a good investment banker because they did pretty well for themselves in FY 10. The annual report states that revenue from escrow management fees related to the CPA exam increased over the prior year and that higher interest rates, on average, during FY 10 were earned on these funds which are held in fully-insured securities or interest-bearing accounts. Can someone please let me know where these accounts are?! I want in.

But the most interesting part of NASBA’s mostly dull financial statements is the $300,000 “fine” Prometric paid them for violating its CPA exam agreement. Yes, the same agreement that was just renewed through 2024 with much fanfare last year.

The item is reported as “Income from Contract Issue” on NASBA’s consolidated financial statements and buried in note 12 thusly:

Note 12. Income from Contract Issue
As a part of the initial CBT Services Agreement effective May 31, 2002, Prometric was required to obtain and maintain insurance policies for certain specific perils, coverage amounts, terms and conditions naming the Association and its member boards as additional insureds. During fiscal 2010, the Association asserted that Prometric failed to comply with certain applicable insurance requirements. Prometric denied the assertions but, in resolution of the matter, provided evidence that it had come into compliance, agreed to indemnify, hold harmless and defend for any coverage lapses, and paid $300,000 to the Association. In addition, Prometric reimbursed the Association for certain legal and administrative expenses related to the resolution.

It doesn’t appear that NASBA declared the legal and admin expenses it also received so we’re assuming they were either immaterial or just embarrassing. Any financial statement detectives are welcome to come to their own conclusions.