Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Turns Out Becker Didn’t Come Up With the Intensive Review Course Concept

Posted on by Adrienne Gonzalez

Fun fact: the intensive review course is not a Becker invention. As far as we are aware, it was actually pioneered at James Madison University in 2005.

Known GC reader Professor Tim Louwers sets the record straight (note for disclosure purposes that Professor Louwers serves on the AICPA Auditing and Attestation Subcommittee and is therefore restricted from having any contact with Becker or any other CPA review program):

James Madison University pioneered the 5-week CPA Review course which Becker originally thought was insane, but allowed us to try anyway.  Paul Copley, JMU’s Director of the School of Accounting, came up with the idea of “CPA boot camp” as a good way to encourage our grads to take the exam before they started working.   Most of the students’ leases go through 6/30, so the course starts on campus a week after graduation (midMay), runs 6 weeks with a one-week break in the middle.  Students are then encouraged to take all four parts in the July-August window (two weeks apart). 

I think we had close to 90 (both JMU and other local college students) take the course this past spring in a “misery loves company” environment, but the results ARE pretty ridiculous (94% overall pass rate, 87% (!) overall section average for JMU MSAs).

As we already know, JMU boasts a pretty bad ass CPA exam pass rate so they must not be that crazy after all.

This only goes to prove what was already proven in the comments on the earlier post about intensive review – it works best if you have no kids, no spouse, no job and no life. For fresh grads, it might be a viable way to hammer through the exam but for those who've been dragging their feet and out of the game for awhile, it might be best to stick to something a bit slower and all-encompassing.

 

Related Posts

Calm Down, This CPA Exam Practice Question Isn’t as Dirty as You Think

One CPA candidate has clearly studied to the point that only basic instincts remain: @going_concern […]

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.