Forum Replies Created
- Posts
100% – we were taught to look at the exhibits and fit them into your answers and that they always tell you something for a reason.
The fact they’ve set two sets of questions against the same case study shows why the above approach is flawed.
With previous ACCA SBL papers (specimen/past /practice papers) there was always a logical flow of information that you could then apply to one or multiple of your answers.
Examiners articles always focus on the need to relate to the case – there was nowhere near enough information in the case for some of the questions. We were told to avoid generic points … but some cases you had no option but to be generic.
PLEASE RESPOND TO ACCA FEEDBACK FORM EXPLAINING THESE CONCERNS.
I sat the afternoon paper. I’m unsure if they always change the questions between AM/PM but I don’t see how it’s ethical or fair. It makes comparison or marks and marking inconsistent.
I totally agree with all the comments, so in a way it’s reassured me that I’m not alone.
The examiners reports were always focused on the need to be relevant to the scenario, however it was very difficult to get enough relevant points from the scenario and I believe this is because they’ve tried to make so many questions fit.
We were taught to read the scenario and see which question it would fit into. So I was desperately trying to see where the stakeholders would slot into my answers, but clearly this was aimed at the morning paper! It lead to me reading my questions numerous times and thinking of different ways to interpret them.