1. The exam should have short answer questions and the argument that speeding up the marking process will encourage people to join the profession is one that simply does not make sense.

2. Five months to sit the exam again is similar to if someone failed a large exam at university but arguing for a smaller window is reasonable.

The crux of the PY issue is that there are not enough large employers with advice/training academies ready to invest in young advisers (the people who the industry wants to encourage to choose financial planning majors). Until that happens, any approach to new entrants (primarily targeting school leavers choosing uni majors) will either be unnoticed or appear disjointed, with little to nothing done to address their incentive structures to choose financial planning as a career.

When was the last time a large company approached a university campus to market their PY/adviser academy?

Even if PY advisers finished closer to the 12 month mark, I do not think that would make much difference to encouraging new entrants. The training needs to be taken much more seriously, better structured and more deliberate. New entrants would need to associate each increment with a clear outcome and be confident that they are making meaningful progress - not just going through the motions for the sake of compliance.