Next week we will be launching a new exam benchmarking program allowing you to compare your exam performance against your AnalystForum peers. There is no cost for participating. Once we’ve collected enough responses to provide a good comparison against your peers we will send you an email with the report (which may take 4 to 6 weeks to accomplish).
I also want to note that your email and exam results will not be shared with any third parties. Thanks for your help in making this new benchmarking program a success.
I will be closing off the collection of results tomorrow and should have the analysis complete by next week which is withing the 4-6 weeks promised in the initial thread.
Great job Chad n Co. ! The analysis seems to be quite helpful than initially I thought…Helps point out gaps/improvement areas for failed candidates looking across cross section of pass candidates.
I am having doubt about 40/60/80 rule of benchmarking. The rule should have been according to the points alloted in every subjects. e.g 40/60/80 rules asssumes that if your score is in between 51%-70% range, the mid point is (50+70)/2 = 60% which is not fair to the candidate whose score is in between 51%-70% in 18 points topic like Alternative Investments. We all have to undersatand that how this 18 points in total to Alternative Investmnt is alloted . It is allotted by 6 Questions each consisting of 3 points that makes to total of 6 x 3 = 18 points. Now my question is that a candidate can only get in the range of 51%-70% by choosing 4 questions right out of 6 quetsions that makes to 4/6 = 67% ( Appx) whereas benchmark reporting shows 60% only, which is biased towards the assumption of the 40/60/80 rule. I emphasise that there is no other way a candidate can get the score in 51%-70% range in 18 points subjects like AI because if it is 5/6 ( 5 quest.right out of total 6 questions) it makes 83.33%, if it is 6/6 it makes to total of 100%. In both the cases i.e 5/6 and 6/6 it will be reported as >70%. If we take other way around i.e if it is 0/6 it is 0%, if it is 1/6 it is 16.67% so on i.e 2/6 = 33.33%, 3/6 =50%, In this case it will be reported as <50%. My suggestion is that Lower average range is wider, I mean we have to make 4 guesses whether the candidate is right about 0/6, 1/6, 2/6, or 3/6 but it is not possible to guess exact number so we can take average of (0+16.67+33.33+50)/4 = 25%. However Upper range(i.e >70%) is narrower. There are only 2 cases by which it can be greater than 70% i.e. the actual score is either 83.33% or 100%. There is no other way it can be >70% in total of 18 points, therefore avge should be (83.33+100)/2 = 91.67%.Now if a person is correct by 5/6 it makes 83.33% but avge is slightly higher i.e 91.67-83.33 = 8.34 but if a person is correct by 6/6 it makes to 100% but avge is slightly lower by 100-91.67=8.33. but in case of 40/60/80 rule if a person is correct by 6/6, avge no.is 80 which is lower by 20 points which is a huge diffrence in the light of above mentioned rule which depicts some what real picture. In my opinion the 40/60/80 rule for AI should be changed to 25/67/92 on an Appx basis.
In case of 36 points avge should be taken as i.e upper range possibility 12/12=100%, 11/12=91.67%, 10/12=83.33%, 75%, Avge= (100+91.67+83.33+75)/4=87.5% so on middle avge range (66.66% +58.33%)/2= 62.67%, Lower avge range = (50+41.67+33.33+25+16.67+8.33)/6=29%. Therefore in 36 Points 40/60/80 should be change to 29/63/88 on an appx basis.
In case of > 36 points the same precedure as above mentioned should be followed:-----
In my opinion this is somewhat real than 40/60/80 rule. Lets hope to explore more if somebody can add more or reduce it, if I am understanding the 40/60/80 rule wrong because my passing %ge in benchmark analysis is lower than the avge passing candidate. But no doubt about this fact that somebody has taken initiation and has done great job to make us realize which area to improve on as for me almost on every topics.
