Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7



CASTRO, Allan B; ALMORA, Frank Rick S.; CASTRO, Charleston E.;
MOLINTAS, Rocelle Amber G.; WACNANG, Prince Jan Ronald D.

Abstract Negative speculations over the capacity of students who petition their review subjects during
the summer term have been so strong in the context of Saint Louis University since its failed
experiment of allowing students to cross-enroll their review subjects during the summer term
to other universities. However, petitioning and cross-enrolling are two different things, so
that, given the case of the petitioners for the Summer Term of A.Y. 2013-2014, this research
aims to disprove the notion that petitioning subjects during the summer term may
significantly decrease SLUs performance in the CPA Boards. Lastly, this paper forwards a
program proposal for the KASAMA/SSC to which the University Administration may want to
take into consideration.

1. Introduction
Unfortunately, the result of such leniency by
The CPA Licensure Board Exams has been the Department of Accountancy of SLU
seen as the pinnacle of professional and resulted to one of the lowest passing rate by
competency assessment for all graduate Saint Louis University in the CPA boards.
students of any Accountancy Program. As
such measures to protect the institutional Such alarming event resulted to the
passing rate by schools has been acceptable implementation of protective measures by
(in extension, to any program with a national SABM which includes: a) disallowing the cross-
board exam attached to it). enrollment by Accountancy Students of
review subjects, and b) disallowing review
Just like any progressive academic institution, subjects to be petitioned in the Summer/Short
Saint Louis University has been a ground for term for any given Academic Year.
experimental policies as to allow the best
compromise between the conflicting interests Such system was in place until the
of the school and of the students. summer/short term of A.Y. 2013-2014 when
graduating accountancy students, who failed
Sometime in the past, the School of some of their review subjects during the
Accountancy and Business Management preceding semester, joined by their parents
permitted the cross-enrollment of graduating and the KASAMA/SSC Executive Committee
accountancy students, who failed their review Office, erred a petition to open five review
subjects in the preceding semester, to other subjects (including Accounting 601, 602, 603,
universities for the summer term to retake the 604 and 605) for the succeeding summer term
said subjects. Such is to allow the students to on the following grounds: a) the need to
graduate on-time and to be able to take the accommodate such request due to the shift in
CPA Board Exams same as to those who academic calendar for the next Academic
passed their review subjects during the Year, and b) the recognition of their right as
preceding semester. students and their special status of a

cc: CACMW Group, KASAMA/SSC, SABM Dean, Accountancy Department Head, *VP Academic Affairs

graduating student that would give them the Summer Term of A.Y. 2013-2014 who took
leverage for their speedy graduation process. (first time or repeater) the May 2015 CPA
Board Exams.
The approval of the petition was confronted
with a strong opposition primarily because of Lastly, this aims to propose a research
the casted doubt on the readiness of the program that will serve as a solution to the
petitioners to take the Boards in case they doubts whether opening of petitioned
pass the subjects and extending further the courses by students who fail their review
possibility of drastically affecting the subjects will be a fundamental or baseless
institutional passing rate of SLU. fear, thus, resolving whether petitioning of
subjects is a good practice to maintain the
Eventually, with the kind heart of SABM Dean performance of SLU in the CPA Board Exams
Reynaldo Bautista and former Accountancy afloat.
Department Head Marc Oliver B. Castaeda,
the petitioners request was granted. Ergo, the questions that are sought to be
answered by this research are as follows:
1) What was the performance of the
1.1. Aims and problems of the research individuals belonging to the
petitioning group in the October
At present, a similar request was forwarded 2014 and/or the May 2015 CPA
by some accountancy students who failed Licensure Exams?
their review subjects during the preceding
semester. 2) What is the population distribution
of the October 2014 CPA Board
A degree of adamancy is being afforded to the Exam Takers according to first-
request given the primary belief that the time petitioning, first-time non-
performance of the previous batch who petitioning and Repeaters?
petitioned the opening of the review subjects
during the Summer Term of A.Y. 2013-2014 3) Is there a significant difference in
was not good or comparatively competitive the frequency of passers and non-
than those who took the October 2014 CPA passers for the first-time
Boards who belonged to the non-petitioning petitioning and first-time non-
group (i.e. non-repeaters for any review petitioning groups?
4) Is there a significant difference in
In line with this years petition, this research the frequency of passers and non-
aims to study the claim that the board exam passers for the first-time non-
performance of those who belong to the petitioning and Repeater groups?
petitioning group is comparatively lower that
those who dont in the October 2014 CPA 5) What is the performance level of
Board Exams. petitioning group in the May 2015
CPA Boards?
In extension, this research also aims to
identify the group that have heavily 6) What possible program can be
contributed to the decline in the 2014 CPA adopted to rule whether opening
Board Exams for SLU. of petitioning subject is a viable
course of action for the
In extension, this research further aims to Department of Accountancy of
investigate the performance of those who SLU SABM?
belonged to the petitioning group of the
cc: CACMW Group, KASAMA/SSC, SABM Dean, Accountancy Department Head, *VP Academic Affairs

2. Methods and Limitations groups for the October 2014 CPA Board Exams
(i.e. passers and retakers of undergrad review
This research applied simple arithmetic and subjects).
data review of the publications by PRC since
individual scores by CPA Board Exam takers is However, this is justified since the primary
treated with extreme confidentiality, thus, focus of this research is the comparison of the
making its access impossible. petitioning groups performance to those who
dont belong to the said group (i.e. first time-
This paper performed the following non petitioners and repeaters).
procedures to gather the data:
1) A complete list of petitioners during Also, Conditional and Failure status were
the Summer Term of A.Y. 2013-2014 classified into a single criteria (i.e. non-
was provided by Danica Joy passing) since list of people who were given
Montemayor, the official conditional and failing status pursuant to the
representative of those who October 2014 CPA Board Exams were not
petitioned the opening of review identified by PRC.
subjects during the said period.

2) From the given list, names were 3. Results and discussion

individually verified with the list of
applications for the October 2014 and 3.1. What was the performance of the
May 2015 CPA Board Exams which can individuals belonging to the petitioning
be verified by the list of testing group in the October 2014 and/or the May
centers for each region. 2015 CPA Licensure Exams?

3) From which, Arithmetic was As seen from Table 1, there were 32

performed to calculate the number of petitioners for the Summer term of A.Y. 2014-
students who belong to a) First-time 2015.
Petitioners, b) First-time Non-
petitioners and c) Repeaters for the From which, only 21 decided to take the
October 2014 CPA Board Exams. October 2014 CPA boards and 13 decided to to
take the May 2015 CPA boards.
For the May 2015 CPA Board Exams,
the diversity of examinees made it From those who took the October 2014 CPA
hard to classify those who took the Board exams, 14 students were able to pass
exam into definitive group, ergo, only and 7 students otherwise.
the weighted percentage passing rate
for those who took to the May 2015 While those 13 who took the May 2015 CPA
CPA Board Exams was taken into Board Exams, 7 belonged to the retakers from
account for this paper. the October 2014 CPA boards, 3 belonged to
the passing first-time takers and 3 were first-
Also, statistical tools such as chi-square (x2) time non-passers
test for homogeneity was used to calculate
the presence of significant difference in the It is also worthy to note that among these 32
passing rate among groups who took the students, there were 5 students who did not
October 2014 CPA Board Exams. apply/take for any CPA Boards for October
2014 and May 2015.
Also, this paper recognizes a key assumption
which is the automatic division between three

cc: CACMW Group, KASAMA/SSC, SABM Dean, Accountancy Department Head, *VP Academic Affairs

Number of takes
Result of OCTOBER Result of MAY 2015
2014 exam exam
1 ACIO, Glenn PASSED 1
7 BARADAS, Florraine PASSED 1
11 CACHIN, Razhel Green PASSED 1
14 CRUZ, Ma. Andrea 0
15 DIAZ, Donna Kristel PASSED 1
16 DIAZ, Jhonamae Grace PASSED 1
17 FRANCISCO, Rachel Anne PASSED 1
18 GAJARDO, Kristneil PASSED 1
19 GUERRERO, Jenny Anne PASSED 1
21 LABONETE, Kristine Joy PASSED 1
22 MOLINO, Julius Yomer PASSED 1
24 NIEVA, Carisse Joy 0
25 NUNEZ, Audrey PASSED 1
28 SALES, Gianville 0
29 SY, Mark Jerwin 0
30 TICMAN, Kimberly Rose PASSED 1
31 ULAY, Michael Joe PASSED 1
32 VILLAMIN, Christine 0

Legend: Did not take the Exam

Table 1: List of Petitioners and their corresponding performance for the October 2014 and May 2015 CPA
Board Exams

cc: CACMW Group, KASAMA/SSC, SABM Dean, Accountancy Department Head, *VP Academic Affairs

So that, to summarize the performance of d) 9.38%, 3 students, failed their first

those who petitioned in the Summer Term of take and are still to take their
A.Y. 2013-2014, the following statements can second try for the boards; and
be held true:
a) 15.63%, 5 students, havent took e) 0%, none, so far, have failed the
either the October 204 or May CPA Boards for more than two
2015 CPA Board Exams; time.

b) 53.13%, 17 students, were first-time

passers of the CPA Board Exams; 3.2 What is the population distribution of the
October 2014 CPA Board Exam Takers
according to first-time petitioning, first-
c) 21.83%, 7 students, were second- time non-petitioning and Repeaters?
time passers;


First-time Petitioning 21 14 pax 4.88% 7 pax 2.43%
First-time Non- 134 97 pax 33.80% 37 pax 12.89%
Repeaters 132 60 20.91% 72 25.09%
TOTAL 287 171 59.59% 116 40.41%

Table 2: Population distribution of October 2014 CPA Board Exams for SLU

As seen from Table 2 above, it can be seen difference among groups using chi (X2) square
that bulk of the examinees for the October using the Test for homogeneity.
2014 CPA Boards came from First-time Non-
petitioning and Repeating Groups. Only 21 out 3.3. Is there a significant difference in the
of the 287 examinees belong to the frequency of passers and non-passers for
petitioning group. the first-time petitioning and first-time
non-petitioning groups?
Also, looking at the passing and non-passing
rate, the first-time non-petitioning group In this test, the First-time Non-petitioning
ought to have little effect to the weighted group will be compared to the First-time
passing/failing rate. petitioning group to examine whether the
passing/non-passing rate for each group is
This method of comparison is neglectful of the significantly different.
effects on the established proportions for the
population distribution and sad to say such This is to answer whether the decrease in the
method is applied to determine whether the over-all passing rate was due to the
performance of a certain group was good or petitioning group or not.
From the results presented in Table 3, it shows
In this effect, the only fair way to establish that the Passing Rate and Non-passing rate for
whether the passing/failing rate of the various the Petitioning group has no difference to the
groups is different from each other is to result presented by the Non-petitioning
investigate the existence of a significant group.

cc: CACMW Group, KASAMA/SSC, SABM Dean, Accountancy Department Head, *VP Academic Affairs

Non- And since the non-passing rate of the repeater

Passers Passers TOTAL group is lower than the norm group, it could
be said that the repeater group who took the
Petitioning Group 14 7 21 October 2014 CPA Board Exams have
Non-petitioning significantly pulled down the Board Exam
Group 97 37 134 results for the October 2014 boards for Saint
TOTAL 111 44 155 Louis University.
X comp 0.29
This means that the belief that the petitioning
= .5 X2 tab= .45 group have caused the decrease in the boards
passing rate of SLU is baseless. In fact, their
Table 3. Chi-square test comparing First-Time performance was equal to the performance of
Petitioning and First-time Non-petitioning Groups the first-time non-petitioners.
This means that the performance by the Therefore, these results prove that the level of
petitioning group during the October 2014 performance of students during the Board
CPA Board Exams was almost the same as to Exam cant be determined by the number of
the standard group which is the First-time times that a student has taken the prescribed
non-petitioning group. review subjects during his/her undergraduate
3.4. Is there a significant difference in the
frequency of passers and non-passers for 3.5 What is the performance level of
the first-time non-petitioning and Repeater petitioning group in the May 2015 CPA
groups? Boards?


Passers Passers TOTAL PASSERS
Repeaters 132 72 204 First-time 6 3 pax 3 pax
Non-petitioning Petitioning
Group 97 37 134 Repeater 7 7 pax 0
TOTAL 229 109 338
First-time Non- 70 32 pax 38 pax
X2 comp = 3.15*
= .5 X2 tab= .45 Repeater Non- 84 50 34
Table 4. Chi-square test comparing Repeaters TOTAL 167 92 75
and First-time Non-petitioning Groups
Table 5. Summary of the May 2015 CPA Boards
Given the Table above, it can be seen that for SLU Examinees
there is a significant difference in the passing
and/or non-passing rate of the repeater group Given Table 5, it can be seen that the
from the standard group. performance of the petitioning group has
been utterly good with 76.92%, 10 out of 13
This means that theres a great difference in students, passing rate as opposed to the
the adjusted proportional value of the passing cumulative passing rate of 55.09% by Saint
and/or non-passing rate of the two groups. Louis University.

cc: CACMW Group, KASAMA/SSC, SABM Dean, Accountancy Department Head, *VP Academic Affairs

we go into details, the 76.92% passing rate of However, if future data proved otherwise, then
the Petitioning group is higher than the 45.71% the KASAMA/SSC should also reconsider its
and 59.52% passing rate for the First-time non- stand of supporting future petitioners.
petitioning and repeater non-petitioning
groups respectively. In conclusion, a) pursuance of the
experimental policy of permitting students to
4. Conclusion and research petition review subjects during summer or
recommendation short term, and b) close monitoring of the
performance of these petitioning students
The research above has presented one of the after graduation in the board exams should be
strongest proof that shows that students who the priority course of action by the incumbent
petition their subjects during the summer and the proximate future batches of
term and are given chance to enroll it, with KASAMA/SSC officials.
proper guidance and instruction, are equally
competitive to take the CPA Board Exams. As the supreme student organization within
the university that promotes and supports
This also disproves the claim that students student welfare and development, the SLU
who petition their subject during the summer KASAMA-SSC should continuously strive to
term are not the cause for the decrease in the determine ways of improving present policies
passing rate of SLU. and practices to address various student
concerns and to maximize their right to quality
Since this research is myopic to the case of educational services without compromising
October 2014 and May 2015 CPA Board exams, the reputation of the school.
the researchers simply suggest for the
KASAMA/SSC to make a continuing research
program for this to examine further the Acknowledgement
veracity of the established conclusion.
As promised, I would want to thank my CPA
5. Program Recommendation friend, Danica Joy C. Montemayor (Block 3, 1st
year BSAc A.Y. 2009-2010), for her invaluable
Since the initial petition to open Accountancy contribution of fixing the list of petitioners for
review subjects was initially started during the the Summer Term of A.Y. 2013-2014 and
reign of the Executive Committee for A.Y. 2013- helping me review one-by-one the list of
2014, under the presidency of the lead author passers and room allocations for various
of this research, it is highly suggested that the testing areas for the October 2014 CPA Board
KASAMA/SSC should continually monitor the Exams.
progress of the experimental act of opening
review subjects during the summer term. Also, thank you to my co-authors who decided
to extend their assistance on the night of June
If the initial results are strongly supported by 9, 2015.
the succeeding performance of student
petitioners, it is highly suggested that the May our work be not in vain!
KASAMA/SSC of the future should pursue the
implementation of an actual policy that would
not bar students from petitioning
review/similar subjects during the summer

cc: CACMW Group, KASAMA/SSC, SABM Dean, Accountancy Department Head, *VP Academic Affairs