herbert7890 wrote: Alright, im bored and I thought this was fun. I will try explain the formula I used for this "theoretic concept" That means the 4th quarter passing rate must had been of 42%. and to corroborate the mathematical accuracy of this we can double check: 52% + 47% + 51% + 42% / 4 = 48% I repeat, I'm bored at 1:52 am with nothing else to do...... but I hope that explains the concept.

I appreciate that you took it so seriously :-))) . I hope everybody can solve a 4th grade math example, otherwise I'd be worried about our CPA candidates' math abilities.

I had a problem with these words: "So if you used a little bit of algebra you could figure out the data for the 4th quarter, but it looks like it would be a bit higher than the first 3 quarters." Did you notice the word - HIGHER- ? That was an obvious math error, made by a person who states that it's "algebra, dude". Duh? If you look at Q2 and Q3 only, you notice both quarters are much higher that the annual average. It can only mean that Q1 and Q4 should be LOWER than the same annual average. Sometimes, you don't even need to do any math to see the obvious things.

asgamouh wrote: Guys you need to understand that the rates shown on the web page are not cumulative. Each quarter has the passing rates for that quarter and the cumulative column is the only cumulative passing rates.

Yep, it's the passing rate by each quarter, and then, it's the annual average passing rate (meaning it's a cumulative number for 2010). You need those cumulative annual numbers in order to make comparisons with previous years' passing rates.

I've seen (on a blog) a detailed analysis of these passing rates: if you take in consideration only annual numbers then you see an obvious upward trend. When you look at quarterly numbers (aka Q3 2010 vs. Q3 2008), then - it depends upon each specific quarter!

I'll try to find the link to that blog... I couldn't find the initial blog that had some nice comparative charts, but I found the annual numbers since 2005 (link: http://www.mncpa.org/cpa-exam/exam-facts/exam-statistics.asp x)

As you can see, even if the annual trend is a steady upward one, some quarterly data are mixed. E.g., REG Q4 2008 = 49%, while same Q4 2009 = only 47%. Same story here: FAR Q3 2008 = 54% vs. Q3 2009 = only 51%.

Then go check the Q1 2005 passing rates and have a laughter!

I'll repost some old info. Maybe it's common knowledge already, who knows:

"CPA Exam Pass Rates and Release of Exam Results
Pass rates per part are higher now, averaging in the mid to upper 40th percentile, compared to the low 30s with the paper-and-pencil exam. Overall pass rates on all four parts are now around 20 percent, compared to the low teens before the exam became computer-based. These results are not unexpected, given that candidates have the “luxury” of preparing for one part at a time, and can focus solely on that one part, instead of trying (over a period of several months) to learn everything that could be tested over a single two to two-and-a-half day period of time. Higher pass rates support the view of many older CPAs that the exam is easier now. However, part of the reason for the increase in pass rates may be that more states now require completion of a fifth year.  Today’s students routinely take two auditing courses, two tax courses and courses in advanced financial accounting and governmental/nonprofit accounting. One final note:  Past candidates had to wait three months to receive their exam scores; now results are available in a matter of a few weeks."

I had to laugh, though, at the last sentence: "Now results are available in a matter of a few weeks." Yes, of course, several weeks, that's so right! I remember waiting for my first REG score for MORE that two months, lol!