Would you trust an accountant who was wrong 50% of the time?

[purplepoppy]

I'm currently discussing this matter with another gagger on Is 95% on an assignment good for 2nd year at university (UK)? ↗

I make the argument that if you hire the services of a professional accountant then you should expect a high degree of accuracy.

However they claim 50% is perfectly acceptable. It seems odd to me that half your work can be incorrect yet still acceptable. I understand errors occur in any profession but at 50% I'd be better off letting a parrot peck a calculator.

What are your thoughts?
Feel free to comment on their question too.

[Effably]

Comparing the work that would be done as an accountant and the score on an exam is already bordering on too far apart to be reasonable.

If it did translate, but it does not, I would not even trust someone who got 99%. As a finance graduate myself being wrong 1% of the time professionaly would be unacceptable. However scoring a 99% average while studying would be worthy of applause and in my university, which was the nation's best no one did. 50% being perfectly fine too. Especially given that the errors are rarely on the mathematical (those are after all the easy exam points) but rather on matters that will not be relevant unless pursuing academia.

And so really what you are comparing is much more likely to be whether or not they could argue a case or policy poorly, (below 50%). Well, 50% to 70% or thereabout as a norm) or impressively (70 %).
And the whole key point is that the grading occurs with the assumption that 50% is equivalent to an accepted standard.

Translating it to being a waiter 50% means everything went well and pretty much all who were served were content. Whereas 95% is multiple daily instances of praise.

[SaoirseS]

After looking at the question you linked, I think there's a garble and you're both referring to different things: you're talking about arithmetical accuracy in accounting practice, she's talking about academic percentile for passing a class or credentialing exam.

Doing the calculations is probably the easiest part of accounting (these days it's mostly input on a spreadsheet with calculations done by programmed formula), and one where errors stand out, and are easy to track down and fix. It's knowing all of the business applications, rules and regulations, reporting requirements, tax implications that makes it tough. That varies between business types, whether it's corporate, LLC, or farm and ranch accounting.

As an example, in the US the standardized Certified Public Accountants exam is in four parts, each taking four hours, requiring a percentile score of 75 out of a possible 99 in each section to pass and become a Certified Public Accountant (a requirement for accountants serving in a lot of positions, including my own funeral home LLC). It's pretty tough, and has a pass rate of around 50% the first time around. The four parts are: Financial Auditing and Reporting, Auditing and Attestation, Regulation, and Business Environments and Concepts. Financial Auditing and Reporting is the toughest (I barely passed that part the first go-around).

Anyone in accounting that doesn't get the numbers right all the time, or who can't track down and remedy accounting errors (something I do weekly), doesn't need to be in accounting. But from an academic and credentialing standpoint, that's not the tough part. Reporting to a state's exacting standards sometimes can be, especially when it changes as frequently as it does.

[jennifer_bloom]

I did not study STEM but in my social studies class, a 50% does not mean your information is 50% wrong. You could have correct information exceeding 90-95% and still get a 50% for other reasons such as - Paper was disorganized, paper did not innovate enough personal opinion, paper used too many big words, paper used casual every day language and not technical scientific terms, citation method was not consistent.

In high school, I sometimes got under 70% on math calculations when my answers were correct, because I used an older methodology of proof and data citation that was not commonly applied in Canada.

In high school, I might lose 20% on an art assignment I do correctly because the pencils I broke to decorate my architecture sculpture were not perfectly even on both sides, the shading and density of colour contouring wasn’t as consistent as a professional artist. The mixed media I used on my art, detracted from the mood I was trying to convey etc…

Its not 50% deduction for accuracy. It could be procedure or methodology.

[Guy13]

You hold unfounded presuppositions and assumptions. I have to guess that you’ve never been in the professional world and live solely in a theoretical world.

Training can not be equated to Work proficiency and accuracy. One has access to Wisdom, other procedural sources, and immediate contact that he/she does not have in training. And there is peer reviewing in the financial. And now the programs thinking detects procedural variances.

This applies to ALL things. Guess who trains surgeons as related to new equipment advances in technology while IN the surgery. The equipment sales guy or gal.

[SnowedIn]

No I would not. That's absurd.

First, and this may be your point (I admit I haven't gone to the other question yet) accounting (or other professional services) and a uni test is like comparing apples to cans of oil.

If my accountant files my taxes and 50% of the time they're wrong, then half of us are getting audited. Not acceptable.

50% of a builder's homes fall down?

50% of airplanes built have bad engines?

50% of loaves of bread have cyanide in them?

No. Absurd. Perfection is hard and expensive. I'm not advocating or demanding for perfection, but 50% is unacceptable.

[AviatorTom]

An accountant is human and can make mistakes, but 50% accuracy is way too low. Only meteorologists can be wrong that often.

Did you hear about the accountant who went target practicing with his bow and arrow? His first arrow missed the target on the left by 1 meter. His second arrow missed the target on the right by 1 meter, to which he replied "Bullseye!"

[MrOracle]

If my work was 95% reliable, I'd be fired and lose all of my customers. You wouldn't get more than a few customers in the first place with a 50% success rate in my business. My customers expect 99+% - and they strongly prefer as close to 100% as anyone can achieve.

[mstbooblover]

If ever I had the idea of engaging an accountant, that would be precisely to NOT be wrong ! Being able myself to be wrong as any grown up, what's the point in engaging someone being wrong more often?

[churbleburble78]

50% wrong accountant = no... but what's the correlation with the 95% good assignment part? (that's obvs. good, no question)

[purplepoppy]

They wanted to know if 95% was high. I kinda upset them by asking why a maths student wouldn't know that

[Msputiton]

50%? Hell naw🤣

If you hired an accountant its so you ain't gotta follow behind them and clean up they messes.

Accounting mistakes sends someone to jail or gets them audited.

[jamesgoldman]

Absolutely not, my accountant is right 100% of the time and he doesn't even live in the UK anymore but keeps in check if the law for a few smaller clients like myself (he checks my taxes and I send him a good bottle of single malt)

[NathanDavis]

sounds like some education systems around here...

students are expected to approve by 70 to 80%

as a tutor, I am required at least 90%

teachers though... 60% and they're good to go

[Surely]

If a mechanic only fixed your car fifty percent of the time. He would starve to death!
Kind of like I feel about basketball players. Especially on the free throws!

[Anonymous]

No I guess not. Would you employ a solicitor that was crap?

[dustybiker]

Not unless I had some influence with the cartel.

@sirderpsalot123

[LiamJHayden]

Absolutely not. Especially with modern accounting software, 100% should be expected.

[Static_In_The_Attic]

As for the accountant I would only trust him or her 50% of the time.

[exitseven]

If I had an accountant that made that many mistakes I would get a new one.

[Pete671]

70% is first class level, 50% is lower second,

[DrawingBlanks]

I don't think so. And fifty percent accuracy is shitty no matter what you're doing.

[Venting101]

Nope I wouldn't trust them

[Dav1dTh0ma389]

No, I would not

[driven159]

HELL NO !!!