Paper P5 Dec 2010 exam was

Can’t read all those complaining that paper was unfair and differs from past ones. You are studying on professional level to get membership in honourable professional oranization thus expected to be ready for all challenges othervise what kind of professionals you are? I also feel this paper to be lengthy and suppose that I’ve did mistake of principle in q2, but I am not blaming examiner as being responsible for it and hope to get pass mark on 22 Feb 2011.

can we get shane johnson back please? grrr~~~~~

Since I have been doing ACCA this was the most difficult paper I wrote. It was my last paper to qualify….I will be preparing for June 2011 exams now.

I THINK IT IS UNETHICAL AND DISHONEST WHEN YOU PREPARE SO HARD AND PEOPLE BRING PAPERS LIKE THIS BOMBER….NOT MUCH HOPE OF PASSING
UMAR

@terryann1 said:
Not a good paper for me at all. Though it brings no comfort to me, it gives some sense of relief to hear most of you say that Q1 was an unfair question and that it appears to be more P3. That was my feeling from the very beginning but eventually blamed myself that I was under prepared. I have not done P3 as yet but had started to look through the notes for next time around and remember seeing something on CSF. After my P5 exam, I went to opentuition notes and saw nothing on CSF. I then turned to BPP text and found only one sentence on CSF in the entire book (not the most recent text). Furthermore, I searched for the technical article that someone mentioned and could not find any. To have a full question on CSF for P5 (31 marks, the highest on the paper) is rediculous and unfair to us as students.

Completely agree with terryann1: it is ridiculous and unfair to have a full 31-mark question based on one small paragraph in an article published in 2006 for the old sillabus. This is an exam. In my opinion an exam should test the most important and practical topics relevant to the qualification. Most of us work full time and struggle to find sufficient time for studies. ACCA appointed “official publishers” whose textbooks do not cover topics tested in the exam. To me it is unfair that we are expected not just to read and get familiar, but to memorise content of all technical articles to be able to asnwer to exam questions. Why then to appoint “official puiblishers”? Publish everything on ACCA website and we will know that we need to read what is on the website and not to waste time on rubbish textbooks and lectures. Ofr even state that there is no limit to tested material: anything relevant to “Advanced Performance Management” can be tested at the exam.
Btw, I downloaded the article on monitoring and building CFSs on Saturday, 11 December 2010 and the title said that it was “relevant to Professional Scheme Papers 3.4 and 3.5”. If you open the article now you will notice that ACCA has already changed the title to “relevant to ACCA Qualification Papers P3 and P5”. How does this sound for you? Is not it unfair?
Once again, ACCA examiners should understand that this is an exam and there should be some standards and the defined sillabus tested. Students, official publishers and tuitors should be aware of what will be tested to be able to prepare/teach for the exam. If an examiner is changed he/she should be informed about current sillabus taught/studied. To me, it should be made clear what models are tested in each particular question, just like standards tested in P2. Otherwise all of us are just playing a lottery.

Too much of theories and less calculations..I understand that P level is more to theories but this sitting is too much.It seems like taking P1 or P3 instead of P5. Time allocated for this paper is not enough and abit unfair for those who practiced the past year papers because is totally different from previous diets.the fact that theory questions being asked more this sitting, it has taken up alot of candidate’s time in writing and analysing. Not fair at all for the candidates.Should bear in mind on the time that candidates have to answer the whole question paper.

Guys – please fill in the feedback on ACCA website https://www.accaglobal.com/allnews/students/2010/NEWSQ4/News/3381129

for this paper or any other paper. Seriously they need to change their strategy and what they doing to us after studying so hard for months and paying all this money !

For me,it’s hard…im not expecting so many theory as what come out in the question. We are expecting more calculation on this. I dont know whether can pass or not..but,i really hope examiner more linean in examine the paper. I really hope that i pass this paper since it’s my last paper…

The more I think about this exam the more I quite liked it!! Apart from Q1 of course which didnt test students knowledge of the syllabus at all.
I am quite confident for 21st February and just hope I have done enough to pass.
The calculations were ok with the EVA etc and the ABC & Absorption costing for the 16 units were relatively easy so all in all a quite nice rounded exam.
Q1 was a bit of a strange one but kept going and managed to finish the exam with 5 minutes still to spare to check through everything.
Neatest exam paper I have ever written too so am hoping to pick up max professional marks (6% of exam). May just push me over the pass limit to becoming qualified in Feb 🙂

i am yet to attempt the P5 so i wanted to sample people’s views abt the exams b4 i do that.

If ACCA really changed the heading “relevant to paper 3.4 and 3.5” to “P3 and P5” after Dec.11th then…. that doesnt sound good at all. Also, not only that Q1 was a full 31 marks question but it was COMPULSORY. Not fair at all.

too much horible
it’s really very difficult to solve
very different
because my mind was not think about such a pattern