I have a question about how the marking system on the Level 1 exam works.
I know that the actual pass criteria is a closely guarded secret and so forth so this might not get me an true answer at all.
Generally the consensus seems to be that you should get over 70%, however:
Does it matter how far over the 70% threshold I get? As in is there any difference between getting a 75% and a 95%? Obviously the 95% would push the overall average higher but I’m wondering whether the CFAI looks at that when passing/failing you or if they are more concerned about getting a minimum % on the different sections?
Currently based on question practice I feel like I could get 70% or above in Ethics, FRA and Alternatives so the two biggest ones and the smallest one. Statistics I suck at and fixed income isn’t too great either, the rest of the areas are somewhere in between. Assuming I can get over 70% in those 3 sections, I’m wondering what’s the worst I could do in the rest of them and still pass the exam?
I don’t know how true this is, but i’ve heard that if you are right on the cusp of the passing score but your score on Ethics is subpar, you have a high likelihood on being put on band-10
My issue is quite the contrary: it is ethics that I’ve been doing the best on in questions/mocks so far and stuff like statistics and fixed income that I’m not that strong in.
Can a strong ethics score help me if some of the other sections aren’t that great?
Your Ethics score is the deciding factor only if you’re on the brink of pass/fail.
Other than that, a point in Ethics is the same as a point in Quantitative Methods, which is the same as a point in Economics, which is the same as a point in FRA, which is the same as a point in . . . .
You have two weeks. You can still make sure you score 70% minimum on every section, and you will not have to calculate those statistics. The fact is, no one knows anything.