MBA Financial Analysis & Control, Module BST511 (Full-Time)

Feedback Report for January 2012 examination

Overall Module

Overall marks for the examination are satisfactory, the average module mark was 52%,
(2011: 50%) for the Full Time MBA students, resit students averaged 46% (2011: 42%).
The pass rate, students scoring 50% or more, was 68.6% (2011: 50.3%) and students
scoring above 40%, the threshold for compensation, was 88.2% (2011: 80.9%)

The majority of students coped well with the calculation sections of numerical questions;
of much more concern has been the cohort’s generally poor showing in discussion-based
work, both in the discussion sections of numerical problem questions and in full essay
questions. The average mark for numerical questions was 62.9%, (2011: 53%) compared
to an average mark for essay questions of 31.2% (2011: 43.6%). As numerical questions
have a heavier weighting, representing two thirds of the final mark, compared to essay
questions, the strong performance in numerical questions has more than offset the poor
performance in the essay questions, helping to improve the overall average mark and pass
rates.

Module Examination statistics

 32 or 13.1% students scoring 65% or more, the distinction threshold, (2011: 44

or 12.9%).
 136 or 55.5% scoring between 50%, the pass threshold and 64%, (2011: 127 or
37.6%).
 48 or 19.6% scoring between 40%, the threshold for compensation and 49%,
(2011: 104 or 30.6%).
 29 or 11.8% scoring below 40%, the threshold for compensation, (2011: 65 or
19.1%).
 77 or 31.4% scoring below 50%, the pass threshold, (2011: 169 or 49.7%).

Module distribution:
Marks 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90+
2012
245 1 3 8 17 48 100 56 12 - -
100% 0.4% 1.2% 3.3% 6.9% 19.6% 40.8% 22.9% 4.9% - -
2011
340 1 4 22 38 104 90 63 12 6 -
100% 0.3% 1.2% 6.5% 11.2% 30.6% 26.5% 18.5% 3.5% 1.8% -

The lowest module mark on the FTMBA was 7% (2011: 7%) and the highest 77% (2011:
82%). The standard deviation was 12.092 (2011: 13.539).
Analysis of performance by question

The examination consisted of 6 questions, divided into three sections of two questions
each. Students were required to answer 3 questions, 1 from each section. The first two
sections were numerical questions, with mark schemes covering numerical/discussion
elements that varied from 50/50 to 70/30. The third section consisted of two essay
questions, with marks divided in each question 60/40 between two discussions in the
question. A brief analysis of results by question is provided below.

Q1 (Cash and profit: marks were split 70/30 between calculations and discussion).

Average High Low Std Deviation Attempt % Attempted

s
72.7% 99% 21% 16.22 186 76%

Q2 (Ratio analysis: marks were split 50/50 between calculations and discussion).

Average High Low Std Deviation Attempt % Attempted

s
56.5% 93% 3% 18.28 58 24%

Q3 (Decision-relevance: marks were split 60/40 between calculations and discussion).

Average High Low Std Deviation Attempt % Attempted

s
46.9% 78% 12% 14.05 27 11%

Q4 (CVP: marks were split 50/50 between calculations and discussion).

Average High Low Std Deviation Attempt % Attempted

s
58.2% 87% 9% 15.45 216 88%

Q5 (Essay on financial reporting: marks were split 60/40 between two discussions).

Average High Low Std Deviation Attempt % Attempted

s
31.9% 63% 3% 11.13 141 58%

Q6 (Essay on management accounting: marks were split 60/40 between two

discussions).

Average High Low Std Deviation Attempt % Attempted

s
30.2% 60% 6% 11.13 99 40%
Overview

It is apparent that overall performances were much better on numerical questions than
essays, in deed the strong performance on question 1 is due to the heavy weighting of
marks, 70%, for the the numerical part of the question. What is not clear from the
analyses above, however, is that the discussion sections of numerical questions were
often not well handled. The majority of marks, even those from students who performed
relatively well, were gained on calculations.

In the discussion sections of numerical questions, and much more so in full-scale essays,
there was little attempt to focus logically on the questions asked, to organise knowledge
into relevant answers. Far too often much of the discussion was not relevant to the
question being asked, one had the impression that many such “information-dumps”
would have been the same, irrespective of the ‘angle’ of the question asked, for any given
topic. A particular area of concern was many students’ apparent lack of commercial
awareness (or indeed sheer common sense) when dealing with discussions that asked for
qualitative or commercial critiques, such as section (f) of Q4, many students coming up
with unit profit figures that were greater than the unit selling price and not realising that
this cannot be so.

The problem is that students seem to find it difficult to move beyond the level of purely
descriptive writing, to treat subjects critically or analytically, or – especially - to read and
answer the question that is in front of them.

Specific Question Comments:

Question 1

Heavily weighted numerical question, students coped well with the numerical element of
the question and so scored highly on this question.

Question 2

Students coped with calculations of ratios, however many failed to illustrate clear
interpretation and explanation of the ratios.

Question 3

In the main students were able to identify types of cost and whether or not these costs
were relevant. Students identified commercial factors, but greater depth of discussion
would have helped, particularly in the context of the information provided in the
question. Few students were able to articulate an explanation as to the differences
between costs used in the context of conventional accounting and costs used for short-
term decision making.

Question 4

In the main students answered the numerical part of the question well, however in part (d)
a significant number of students looked at total profit as opposed to incremental profit,
part (e) was also poorly answered. The discussion part of the question was poorly
answered with only limited depth of discussion regarding qualitative and commercial
factors.

Question 5

Many students should a lack of understanding of the basic elements of financial

statements, students were unable or chose not to explain the elements of financial
statements, for example an explanation as to what an asset is, what a liability is… In the
second part of the question there was little critical evaluation of how useful financial
statements are, particularly in the context of how relevant, reliable, comparable and
understandable financial statements are.

Question 6

The first part of the question was answered significantly better than the second part. In
the second part of the question there was very little critical evaluation of the statement in
the question and only limited consideration of, the need for businesses to understand their
internal and external environments, limitations of traditional management accounting in
this context, strategic management accounting and strategic management accounting
techniques.