Skip to main content

Highest Marks in ACCA Examination June 2006

I was reading Student Accountant magazine of ACCA and they have published highest marks achiever of June 2006 examination. I was amazed that the candidates can achieve such a high marks in examination.

The June 2006 exam session saw nearly 116,400 Professional Scheme candidates write over 210,000 scripts at 337 exam centres in 133 countries. Following each exam session, ACCA marks the achievements of its top scoring students by awarding medals to those who score the highest scores in the three core papers.



Gold medal winner : Rajeev Tatiah, Mauritius, 232 marks out of 300
Silver medal winner : Mladena Markovic Galliver, Serbia, 229 marks out of 300
Bronze medal winner : Diana Mulebwaire, UK, 222 marks out of 300

Winners Paperwise:

Paper 1.1 (Preparing Financial Statements) prize is Rajiv Bahadur Shastri Seewochurn from Mauritius with a score of 97

Joint winners of the Paper 1.2 (Financial Information for Management) prize are Tatyana Chumakova from Kazakhstan and See Phek Hoon from Singapore, both with scores of 100

Winner of the Paper 1.3 (Managing People )prize is Wiss Rashid, Exeter, UK with a score of 96.

Winner of the Paper 2.1 (Information Systems) prize is Hamza Mahtab Rehman from Rawalpindi in Pakistan with a score of 98.

Winner of the Paper 2.2 (Corporate and Business Law) prize is Darshan Parikh, London with a score of 99.

Winner of the Paper 2.3 (Business Taxation) prize is Bethany Jackaman, Ipswich, UK with a score of 100.

Winner of the Paper 2.4 (Financial Management and Control) prize is Carla Lakey from Southampton, UK, with a score of 90.

Winner of the Paper 2.6 (Audit and Internal Review) prize, with a score of 90, is Katherine Lucas from Essex, UK.

Winner of the Paper 3.1 (Audit and Assurance Services) prize, with a score of 89, is Caroline Hadfield from Rochdale, UK.

Joint winners of the Paper 3.2 (Advanced Taxation) prize, with scores of 81, are Stephen Gahan from Waterford, Ireland, who works at Ernst & Young as an audit trainee, and Melanie Gilbert from Edgware, UK

The Paper 3.3 (Performance Management) winner, with a score of 93, is Chandresh Drona from Greenford, Middlesex, UK.

Winner of the Paper 3.4 (Business Information Management) prize, with a score of 89, is Liz Watts, Sarajevo.

Winner of the Paper 3.5 (Strategic Business Planning and Development) prize, with a score of 84, is Ameer Khanbhai from London, UK.

Winner of the Paper 3.6 (Advanced Corporate Reporting) prize, with a score of 87, is Mladena Markovic Galliver.

Winner of the Paper 3.7 (Strategic Financial Management)prize, with a score of 83, is John Crowley from Ireland.

Congrats for the winners and highest marks achievers.

Regards,

Santosh Puthran
AICWA

Do you like to remain updated in Accountancy?

Subscribe to Management Accountant by Email

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Throughput Accounting

Throughput accounting (TA) is an alternative to cost accounting proposed by Eliyahu M. Goldratt. It is not based on Standard Costing or Activity Based Costing (ABC). Throughput Accounting is not costing and it does not allocate costs to products and services. It can be viewed as business intelligence for profit maximization. Conceptually throughput accounting seeks to increase the velocity at which products move through an organization by eliminiating bottlenecks within the organization.


Cost (or Management) accounting is an organization's internal method used to measure efficiency. Since no one outside the organization uses such internal accounts for investment or other decisions, any methods that an organization finds helpful can be used.


Throughput accounting improves profit performance with better management decisions by using measurements that more closely reflect the effect of decisions on three critical monetary variables (throughput, inventory, and operating expense — defin…

Learning Curve Theory

Learning Curve Theory is concerned with the idea that when a new job, process or activity commences for the first time it is likely that the workforce involved will not achieve maximum efficiency immediately. Repetition of the task is likely to make the people more confident and knowledgeable and will eventually result in a more efficient and rapid operation. Eventually the learning process will stop after continually repeating the job. As a consequence the time to complete a task will initially decline and then stabilise once efficient working is achieved. The cumulative average time per unit is assumed to decrease by a constant percentage every time that output doubles. Cumulative average time refers to the average time per unit for all units produced so far, from and including the first one made.

Major areas within management accounting where learning curve theory is likely to have consequences and suggest potential limitations of this theory.


Areas of consequence:
A Standard Costing

Resistence to Change - Approaches of Kotter and Schlesinger

The Six (6) Change Approaches of Kotter and Schlesinger is a model to prevent, decrease or minimize resistance to change in organizations.
According to Kotter and Schlesinger (1979), there are four reasons that certain people are resisting change: Parochial self-interest (some people are concerned with the implication of the change for themselves ad how it may effect their own interests, rather than considering the effects for the success of the business)Misunderstanding(communication problems; inadequate information)Low tolerance to change (certain people are very keen on security and stability in their work)Different assessments of the situation (some employees may disagree on the reasons for the change and on the advantages and disadvantages of the change process) Kotter and Schlesinger set out the following six (6) change approaches to deal with this resistance to change: Education and Communication - Where there is a lack…