general knowledge

Where to find practice CFE cases

With the May CFE rapidly approaching, you’ll be starting your CFE study period soon. The best (and in this blog’s opinion, only) way to study in the 4-6 weeks ahead of the CFE is by doing plenty of practice CFE cases. Since the CFE doesn’t have a large archive of past cases yet, you should use a combination of past CFE and past UFE (CFE’s predecessor) cases during your study period.

You can find some of the most recent CFE and UFE cases to practice on below.

CPA Canada Offers a number of examples to sift through – CPA Canada offers some practice cases as examples. This is a great place to start.

 

The remainder of your past UFE or CFE cases will be part of the annual exam report and you will have to pull them out individually. Download them and then print them ahead of your study period. Thanks to the CPA Canada and the CPA Western School of Business for the reports provided below.

This should be more than enough and unfortunately for some strange reason, the reports prior to 2010 you can only get by purchasing (for $40) from the CPA store. I believe some provincial bodies may offer this as part of their student area (you must login) so have a look in yours first before any purchases.

There are, of course, plenty of additional cases that you can purchase from various providers but in my view, there is more than enough to go around in the above package. You certainly won’t need to purchase anything more if you don’t want to.

 

Which cases are you planning to practice on for the next CFE? Let’s discuss in the comments.

Common CFE Terminology (or a CFE Dictionary)

With the Common Final Examination (CFE) still being new, the jargon will change so we’ll keep updating this with your suggestions. You’ll hear all kinds of terms thrown around this year. Here are the translations for those who aren’t familiar yet with the CFE terminology:

  • .. Case / Simulation / Exam– These are just all the same terms for a ‘CFE business case’. The UFE typically called these ‘simulations’ which is why you might hear the term still used but most of the official CFE material has gone back to using ‘case’. There are no differences between any of these terms.
  • Multis (multi-competency) are shorter cases which range from 45-90 minutes. They may test around 3-5 competencies at a time. During the CFE, these are written on Day 3. Multis are usually easier to write because they are shorter and easier to manage all the information. The time-crunch level of multis varies.
  • Comps– or Comprehensive cases are the large five hour cases. These are large cases with a lot of information and their own problems/strategies. On the CFE these are written on day one of the exam.
  • NA, NC, RC, C and CD – These are how you are marked on the CFE during days two and three. While each mark is attached a numeric value, your feedback will not include a final score and only a mark ranging from NA to CD. For more description, see here.
    • NA = Not Addressed
    • NC = Nominal Competence
    • RC = Reaching Competence
    • C = Competent
    • CD = Competent with Distinction
  • Assessment Opportunity (Indicator)– An assessment opportunity is a term for a competency being tested. You might hear it referred to as competency indicator as well which means the same thing. An assessment opportunity is a specific requirement within the case that you are required to respond to. So if you’re expected to do an audit planning memo, you would have an assurance indicator that required you to create an audit planning memo. If you’re expected to identify incorrect accounting treatments, you would have a financial accounting indicator that required this. You would then receive a mark of NA to CD for each indicator.
  • Depth– Depth means the amount of detail and meaningful, thorough discussion you have about a specific topic. A superficial discussion without a lot of detail is said to lack depth because you are not exploring enough sides of the issue or not being thorough enough in your discussion. In some contexts, you are also said not have enough depth if you level of discussion within an assessment opportunity is at the RC level (rather than C)
  • Breadth Breadth refers to getting across indicators or issues and talking less thoroughly. If you don’t have enough breadth, it means you are not talking about enough indicators or issues within a single indicator and focusing too much on a single indicator or issue.
  • SecureExam– The software in which the CFE is written. This is a secure, built in word processor, spreadsheet, and reference look up software. You’re advised to start using this as soon as it’s available as it is considered more cumbersome to use than Word and Excel.
  • RAMP-– This acronym stands for Risk, Approach, Materiality and Procedures:  a strategy to tackle audit planning memos.
  • Required – Refers to what you are expected to answer/discuss in the case. This will usually come in the form of somebody asking you to do something as part of the case. Each required is linked to an assessment opportunity.
  • Core (Technical) Competency – The abilities expected of CPA in practice which specifically include Financial Reporting (accounting), Strategy and Governance, Management Accounting, Audit and Assurance, Taxation and Finance.
  • Enabling Competency – The soft skills around being ethical, decision-making, problem-solving, communication, self-management and teamwork and leadership.
  • Integration – Integration is a reference to incorporating multiple elements, usually from multiple competencies, within your case response. It is a bigger-picture, higher-order view of the case with your response discussing how the different portions of the case inter-relate with a view of adding significantly more value in your response than in a competency-specific analysis only.
  • Technical – The term technical is in reference to skills and abilities you need within the core competencies such as financial accounting or management accounting. For example, you need to be able to understand and apply accounting rules from the CPA Handbook – this is a technical skill.
  • Level 1-4 – To pass the CFE you have two pass four separate levels. Learn more here.
  • UFE (Uniform Evaluation) – The quasi-predecessor to the CFE. The UFE was the 3-day case-based qualifying exam for the Chartered Accountant profession prior to 2016.
  • BOE (Board of Evaluators) – The BOE is responsible for setting the passing standards around the Common Final Examination (CFE) and then for ensuring that the standard is held to during examination creation and marking.
  • Short forms for Competencies:
    • FA – Financial accounting and reporting
    • MA – Management accounting
    • Tax – Anything in the taxation competency

 

Heard any other terms that confuse you? Let us know in the comments and we’ll keep updating the dictionary!

UFE Readings Part 2

Almost through, everybody. Not yet around the corner but it’s time to start monitoring for those signs of burnout to ensure that you are 100% on the three days you are writing the real UFE. Over here we’ll continue the content guide that is hopefully both timely and useful.

And of course there is the Debrief Week posts to help your debriefing:

And for inspiration, I always like to recommend the interview with a UFE Gold Medallist Vicky Au.

How is your UFE study period going?

What's going to be on the UFE – 2014 edition

Today is a guest blog post from Gus Patel who successfully completed the 2013 UFE

It’s that time again! If you haven’t already gotten a chance to read the 2013 UFE Report, we have and that means the yearly What’s going to be on the UFE post.

As in prior years, the theory is that the UFE tends to reflect observations made in past UFE Reports so it is a good idea to read this article in conjunction with last years’ What’s going to be on the UFE – 2013 edition.  We will again take the same approach this year and not go into specifics of each case (UFE Blog wouldn’t want to spoil the fun!) but provide some general guidance on the trends and what to look for going into the 2014 UFE.  As a disclaimer, the UFE Blog has no insider knowledge on the 2014 UFE, and it is of the discretion of the candidate to implement a balanced study plan to cover all aspects that may be tested in this year’s UFE.  It is of our opinion that the UFE Report provides some key insight and guidance on what to watch out for.

Without further delay, let’s dive in…

Overall, the introduction in the Executive Summary of the report tells us that the Board of Evaluators concluded:

  • The 2013 UFE contained 2 fewer primary indicators than 2012, but same number of primary indicators as 2011 UFE.
  • The overall level of direction provided on the 2013 UFE was comparable to 2012 UFE, and there was one less PQ indicator, however there was a highlight point that future exams will continue to have a mix of directed and non-directed indicators (thus may not be a trend).
  • Overall candidates’ performance in 2013 was weaker than in the prior year.  Funny enough, the report made several references to the 2013 UFE being easier than the 2012 UFE, being a writer of both I would tend to agree with this, but I wouldn’t take this as a trend that the 2014 UFE will be easier by any means.

Some other noteworthy points summarized:

  • Candidates are doing a better job at applying Handbook guidance to case facts and not using a “copy/pasting” approach,  however some canadidates are not recognizing the need to apply handbook guidance at all in their discussion (Page 6).
  • Consistent with 2012 UFE Report, another warning, that candidates were continuing to employ a dangerous exam-writing strategy that candidates were looking for a specific number of issues on each indicator, even though there were numerous issues outlined in the simultations (Page 6).
  • Candidates performed stronger on quantitative analysis, however were struggling when asked to quantitatively compare options (Page 7).
  • There is a lack of clarity and documentation of calculations, many candidates’ calculations were not well organized, which often resulted in omitting items from analysis and technical errors, this includes the need to document calculations and explain why items may have been excluded (Page 7).
  • Lack of comprehension and integration of case facts, there was a trend of responses to what members of the board thought were evidence of reading the simulations too quickly which resulted in misunderstanding of the simulations (Page 8).
  • The unusual roles assigned in the simulations to candidates in the 2013 UFE continued to be varied with only 2 simulations being traditional assurance roles (i.e. expect to see varied roles in 2014!) (Page 9).

What does this all mean and how should I take this going forward?

  • Remember to take the read and outline stage seriously, including understanding your role and the required. If you are in a unique role, you need to not only act and respond as if you are in that role, you need to consider your users (whether or not they are sophisticated) and as such, you need to tailor your response accordingly.
  • Don’t fall into the trap that discussing a specific number of issues only (i.e. 3 accounting issues always and move on). When outlining you need to bring all your case issues to your outline and look at how many issues there are within an indicator, it is your job to rank these issues and allocate your time to discuss a sufficient number – this could be 3 on one case or 6 on another, so do not get too comfortable with a specific number.
  • There will be a need to track calculations carefully when outlining as well as documenting them clearly so that the marker can understand how you are arriving to your conclusion, remember, the marker’s can’t read your mind or your cell calculations for that matter, so it is necessary to clearly show your work.
  • Remember, to display “competence” and get that “C” you need to have a strong technical knowledge base but also be able to apply the technical in a useful way to the users, do not just jump to conclusions for your issues.

 

Comments by Competency Area

Assurance

Candidates’ performance in Assurance was weaker than in the prior year.  The Board noted last year that candidates’ performance in 2012 was down from the previous year due to them struggling with some of the unusual roles they were given in Assurance, and the same can be said for this year (Page 9).

Here we see again another comment about the “unusual” roles, the theme here is that you really need to adapt based on the required given and consider who the end user of the information is.

… Candidates had difficulty dealing with indicators on which they were asked to look into reporting options and describe procedures that could be performed under the different reports (Page 10).

I think it’s safe to say that you should continue to expect emphasis on special reporting options along with some procedures.

Performance Measurement and Reporting

The report introduced this section stating again that candidates performed poorly in comparison to 2012 in this indicator, and discussed at length that the major issue here is to make sure you are properly analyzing an issue without just jumping to the conclusion.

The Board also noticed that some candidates avoided the more complex issues and discussed the easy ones from a technical perspective only

Remember, even though there are some challenging PMR issues presented in all UFE cases, you must rank the cases and address the major issues rather than pick and choose the ones you find easiest.

Taxation

The Board noticed a slight decrease in the overall performance of taxation responses (Page 11).

Once again, candidates have a tendency to deal with the easy issues and leave the more complex ones aside, instead of taking the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge through a discussion of issues requiring more depth of analysis (Page 12).

I completely empathize here, Tax was not my strong point by any means, but sometimes the UFE forces you to discuss these issues regardless of your strengths or weaknesses – if you are noticing yourself running out of things to discuss within a tax indicator, chances are you are addressing the more minor issues and ignoring the major ones.

Management Decision-Making

Without giving case specifics away, there was a note that there was a lack of quantitative analysis within one of the indicators, and candidates often struggled with how to incorporate facts into quantitative analysis.

It is important to keep in mind that integration is important on the UFE, including integrating some of your previous calculations into your next ones since the results of one calculation can feed the input of another.

Finance

Canadidates struggled with two main elements (in Finance).  First, they had a difficult time providing consistent calculations.  Many candidates included elements that applied to both options in their calculation for only one of the options, or they included elements that applied to only one option in their calculation for both options.  Second, candidates had a difficult time accounting for the time value of money (Page 13).

It is important to outline properly and ensure that you are “slotting” case facts to the right indicator, and in this case, to the right calculations.  Without mentioning specifics, time value of money was a funny comment, as it was mentioned twice in the report. I took another look at the specific case which had this issue and no surprise that the writers’ results here were dismal.  Luckily enough most of you will take on this case prior to the 2014 UFE as part of your study program, when you do, make sure you debrief the indicator well.

Another comment from the above is to make sure that you apply case facts consistently when making comparisons. You cannot compare two options if you include/exclude different items from each.

Governance, Strategy, and Risk Management

Candidates seemed comfortable discussing the risks and drawing on case facts to support their discussions.  However, there was still room for improvement, as candidates sometimes had difficulty explaining the implication to the company of the risk they had identified or providing a viable recommendation to address the risk identified (Page 13).

Remember, it is always necessary to discuss why the company cares that you’ve identified this weakness by linking it to either a key success factor or a financial or non-financial indicator that the company is concerned about. Make sure to develop reasonable recommendations that would cover off the control weakness and also take into account the size and nature of the company (i.e. do not make grand recommendations that a big company could do if who you are reporting to is a family run business).

Pervasive  Qualities and Skills

This year, candidates seemed to do a better job of identifying the issues; however, they had difficulty discussing them in enough depth (Page 14)… they didn’t always support their suspicion or provide a recommendation of what the next course of action should be (Page 14).

Recurring theme in the PQ section, writers are getting better at seeing the big picture but are not always supporting their identification of the issue or providing a recommendation.  A good way to format these discussions are using issue, implication, reccomendation format, being sure to provide more than one supporting point to back up the issue.

If you haven’t yet, do go and read the 2013 edition as this is rumored to also heavily influence content on the UFE. Happy studying!

What’s going to be on the UFE – 2014 edition

Today is a guest blog post from Gus Patel who successfully completed the 2013 UFE

It’s that time again! If you haven’t already gotten a chance to read the 2013 UFE Report, we have and that means the yearly What’s going to be on the UFE post.

As in prior years, the theory is that the UFE tends to reflect observations made in past UFE Reports so it is a good idea to read this article in conjunction with last years’ What’s going to be on the UFE – 2013 edition.  We will again take the same approach this year and not go into specifics of each case (UFE Blog wouldn’t want to spoil the fun!) but provide some general guidance on the trends and what to look for going into the 2014 UFE.  As a disclaimer, the UFE Blog has no insider knowledge on the 2014 UFE, and it is of the discretion of the candidate to implement a balanced study plan to cover all aspects that may be tested in this year’s UFE.  It is of our opinion that the UFE Report provides some key insight and guidance on what to watch out for.

Without further delay, let’s dive in…

Overall, the introduction in the Executive Summary of the report tells us that the Board of Evaluators concluded:

  • The 2013 UFE contained 2 fewer primary indicators than 2012, but same number of primary indicators as 2011 UFE.
  • The overall level of direction provided on the 2013 UFE was comparable to 2012 UFE, and there was one less PQ indicator, however there was a highlight point that future exams will continue to have a mix of directed and non-directed indicators (thus may not be a trend).
  • Overall candidates’ performance in 2013 was weaker than in the prior year.  Funny enough, the report made several references to the 2013 UFE being easier than the 2012 UFE, being a writer of both I would tend to agree with this, but I wouldn’t take this as a trend that the 2014 UFE will be easier by any means.

Some other noteworthy points summarized:

  • Candidates are doing a better job at applying Handbook guidance to case facts and not using a “copy/pasting” approach,  however some canadidates are not recognizing the need to apply handbook guidance at all in their discussion (Page 6).
  • Consistent with 2012 UFE Report, another warning, that candidates were continuing to employ a dangerous exam-writing strategy that candidates were looking for a specific number of issues on each indicator, even though there were numerous issues outlined in the simultations (Page 6).
  • Candidates performed stronger on quantitative analysis, however were struggling when asked to quantitatively compare options (Page 7).
  • There is a lack of clarity and documentation of calculations, many candidates’ calculations were not well organized, which often resulted in omitting items from analysis and technical errors, this includes the need to document calculations and explain why items may have been excluded (Page 7).
  • Lack of comprehension and integration of case facts, there was a trend of responses to what members of the board thought were evidence of reading the simulations too quickly which resulted in misunderstanding of the simulations (Page 8).
  • The unusual roles assigned in the simulations to candidates in the 2013 UFE continued to be varied with only 2 simulations being traditional assurance roles (i.e. expect to see varied roles in 2014!) (Page 9).

What does this all mean and how should I take this going forward?

  • Remember to take the read and outline stage seriously, including understanding your role and the required. If you are in a unique role, you need to not only act and respond as if you are in that role, you need to consider your users (whether or not they are sophisticated) and as such, you need to tailor your response accordingly.
  • Don’t fall into the trap that discussing a specific number of issues only (i.e. 3 accounting issues always and move on). When outlining you need to bring all your case issues to your outline and look at how many issues there are within an indicator, it is your job to rank these issues and allocate your time to discuss a sufficient number – this could be 3 on one case or 6 on another, so do not get too comfortable with a specific number.
  • There will be a need to track calculations carefully when outlining as well as documenting them clearly so that the marker can understand how you are arriving to your conclusion, remember, the marker’s can’t read your mind or your cell calculations for that matter, so it is necessary to clearly show your work.
  • Remember, to display “competence” and get that “C” you need to have a strong technical knowledge base but also be able to apply the technical in a useful way to the users, do not just jump to conclusions for your issues.

 

Comments by Competency Area

Assurance

Candidates’ performance in Assurance was weaker than in the prior year.  The Board noted last year that candidates’ performance in 2012 was down from the previous year due to them struggling with some of the unusual roles they were given in Assurance, and the same can be said for this year (Page 9).

Here we see again another comment about the “unusual” roles, the theme here is that you really need to adapt based on the required given and consider who the end user of the information is.

… Candidates had difficulty dealing with indicators on which they were asked to look into reporting options and describe procedures that could be performed under the different reports (Page 10).

I think it’s safe to say that you should continue to expect emphasis on special reporting options along with some procedures.

Performance Measurement and Reporting

The report introduced this section stating again that candidates performed poorly in comparison to 2012 in this indicator, and discussed at length that the major issue here is to make sure you are properly analyzing an issue without just jumping to the conclusion.

The Board also noticed that some candidates avoided the more complex issues and discussed the easy ones from a technical perspective only

Remember, even though there are some challenging PMR issues presented in all UFE cases, you must rank the cases and address the major issues rather than pick and choose the ones you find easiest.

Taxation

The Board noticed a slight decrease in the overall performance of taxation responses (Page 11).

Once again, candidates have a tendency to deal with the easy issues and leave the more complex ones aside, instead of taking the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge through a discussion of issues requiring more depth of analysis (Page 12).

I completely empathize here, Tax was not my strong point by any means, but sometimes the UFE forces you to discuss these issues regardless of your strengths or weaknesses – if you are noticing yourself running out of things to discuss within a tax indicator, chances are you are addressing the more minor issues and ignoring the major ones.

Management Decision-Making

Without giving case specifics away, there was a note that there was a lack of quantitative analysis within one of the indicators, and candidates often struggled with how to incorporate facts into quantitative analysis.

It is important to keep in mind that integration is important on the UFE, including integrating some of your previous calculations into your next ones since the results of one calculation can feed the input of another.

Finance

Canadidates struggled with two main elements (in Finance).  First, they had a difficult time providing consistent calculations.  Many candidates included elements that applied to both options in their calculation for only one of the options, or they included elements that applied to only one option in their calculation for both options.  Second, candidates had a difficult time accounting for the time value of money (Page 13).

It is important to outline properly and ensure that you are “slotting” case facts to the right indicator, and in this case, to the right calculations.  Without mentioning specifics, time value of money was a funny comment, as it was mentioned twice in the report. I took another look at the specific case which had this issue and no surprise that the writers’ results here were dismal.  Luckily enough most of you will take on this case prior to the 2014 UFE as part of your study program, when you do, make sure you debrief the indicator well.

Another comment from the above is to make sure that you apply case facts consistently when making comparisons. You cannot compare two options if you include/exclude different items from each.

Governance, Strategy, and Risk Management

Candidates seemed comfortable discussing the risks and drawing on case facts to support their discussions.  However, there was still room for improvement, as candidates sometimes had difficulty explaining the implication to the company of the risk they had identified or providing a viable recommendation to address the risk identified (Page 13).

Remember, it is always necessary to discuss why the company cares that you’ve identified this weakness by linking it to either a key success factor or a financial or non-financial indicator that the company is concerned about. Make sure to develop reasonable recommendations that would cover off the control weakness and also take into account the size and nature of the company (i.e. do not make grand recommendations that a big company could do if who you are reporting to is a family run business).

Pervasive  Qualities and Skills

This year, candidates seemed to do a better job of identifying the issues; however, they had difficulty discussing them in enough depth (Page 14)… they didn’t always support their suspicion or provide a recommendation of what the next course of action should be (Page 14).

Recurring theme in the PQ section, writers are getting better at seeing the big picture but are not always supporting their identification of the issue or providing a recommendation.  A good way to format these discussions are using issue, implication, reccomendation format, being sure to provide more than one supporting point to back up the issue.

If you haven’t yet, do go and read the 2013 edition as this is rumored to also heavily influence content on the UFE. Happy studying!

A quick note about the Sample Solutions

Just a quick note today: You’re not expected to write anything near the UFE Report solutions on the UFE.

Another one: You’re probably not going to write anything near the Sample Solution, either.

This is one of the reasons it’s important to work with a study partner or group. You want to see what other real people are writing in the given amount of time.

The solutions there are to give you a thorough, readable way to mark your response.

The sample solutions are there to give you an example of a perfect, or near perfect response from an honour roll level writer. Most candidates fall a ways behind these pros.

How to use these things

Use the solution, along with a marking guide if you have it (marking guide: is a nice to have but is not necessary!) to mark your case but understand that your response will be much more direct and less wordy. The important thing is to hit the issues and use case facts to back them up in the discussion. This is where you can look at the sample solution to see how others.

Use the sample solution to improve your technique. This is a good example of how a pro writer tackles these issues quickly and effectively. You can learn some great techniques from the sample solutions.

What is the pass rate on the UFE?

One of the popular topics on this blog is the UFE Pass Rate.

I’ve written about this before so if you haven’t ready it already, you can see the full analysis here in this previous post.

For those that want the short answer: We don’t know because it’s no longer released.

BUT, based on what the pass rates were in the past and assuming it’s been consistent, we can estimate that it’s in the 74-80% range.

For those that worry about failing at Levels 2 or 3 – this has been extremely unlikely based on the past. Pass rates in Levels 2 and 3 have been above 96% in the past so you’re better off worrying about Level 1 which is your overall score.

A UFE dictionary

You’ll hear all kinds of terms thrown around this year surrounding the UFE. Here’s the translations for those who aren’t familiar yet:

  • UFE… Case / Simulation / Exam – These are just all the same terms for one of the UFE cases. The Official UFE stuff from the CICA calls them simulations now a days but most people will keep referring to them as cases. There are no differences between any of these.
  • Multis – Multis are shorter cases which have ranged from 60-90 minutes in the past. They will usually test 2-3 competencies at a time. For SOA (Ontario) these are written on Day two of the final exam and for UFE these are Days two and three. Multis are usually easier to write because they are shorter and easier to manage all the information.
  • Comps – Comps are the large five hour cases which test 7-8+ competency areas. These are large cases with a lot of information and their own problems/strategies. For SOA (Ontario) these are written on day one of the final exam and for UFE these are written day one as well.
  • Indicator – An indicator is a term for a competency being tested. It’s a specific requirement which you are required to respond to. So if you’re expected to do a audit planning memo, you would have an Assurance Indicator that required you to create an audit planning memo.
  • Depth – Depth means the amount of detail and meaningful, “deep” discussion you have about a specific topic. A superficial discussion without a lot of detail is said to lack depth because you are not being thorough enough in your discussion.
  • Breadth – Refers to getting across indicators and talking less deeply about a number of indicators (competency areas). If you don’t have enough breadth, it means you are not talking about enough indicators (issues) and possibly focusing too much on a single indicator.
  • SecureExam – The software in which the UFE (and SOA in Ontario) is written. This is a secure, built in word processor, spreadsheet, and reference look up software.
  • RAMP – (Risk, Approach, Materiality and Procedures) A strategy to tackle audit planning memos, see here.

I’ll keep building this as we go, but these are some of the big ones. I’ll also do up a post in the future about SOA related terms since there are some unique ones there.

What have you heard that needs to be explained? Let me know in the comments!

UFE 2012 Results November 30 – Let’s hear some opinions

With the UFE results now less than a month away I’ve no doubt that it’ll begin to weigh heavily on a lot of minds as the days tick by. This is normal and unfortunately part of the process.

Over a month has passed since your wrote, your papers are now marked and the Board of Evaluators is probably reviewing the overall results and making a lot of decisions. I hope this time has allowed you to have some “sober second thought” about your performance and I’m putting up a little opinion section below where you can share your thoughts on UFE 2012 if you want. One of the things candidates are most frequently looking for on here is other people’s opinions about UFE 2012 so here’s your chance to share and lend support for those that would like to. Vote below and then join us on the Facebook group for more discussion throughout November leading up to the results. Hang in there, almost through it.

[socialpoll id=”2543″]

UFE 2012 Results November 30 – Let's hear some opinions

With the UFE results now less than a month away I’ve no doubt that it’ll begin to weigh heavily on a lot of minds as the days tick by. This is normal and unfortunately part of the process.

Over a month has passed since your wrote, your papers are now marked and the Board of Evaluators is probably reviewing the overall results and making a lot of decisions. I hope this time has allowed you to have some “sober second thought” about your performance and I’m putting up a little opinion section below where you can share your thoughts on UFE 2012 if you want. One of the things candidates are most frequently looking for on here is other people’s opinions about UFE 2012 so here’s your chance to share and lend support for those that would like to. Vote below and then join us on the Facebook group for more discussion throughout November leading up to the results. Hang in there, almost through it.

[socialpoll id=”2543″]

Pin It on Pinterest