I’m preparing for Level II since beginning of January and I’m done with Ethics, Quant, Econ and FRA. To be honest, I don’t see the point why everybody says Level II is a beast. It is just focused on fewer topics in more depth, which in my opinion is a very very big advantage vs. Level I.
One example for quant: In Level I you have tons of formulas, tons of topics and so on. In Level II basically you ‘just’ have to master regression analysis (which I have already worked on in university)
Am I missing something? Or are the topcis which I haven’t covered yet the ones which are more difficult? I haven’t done the item sets, are they so difficult? Solely on the material covered (and which I have covered in the my first month of preparation) I would say Level II fits better to my personal learning style than Level I and that means it will be easier. Hope the exam won’t prove me wrong
I agree that L2 isn’t nearly as broad as L1. I also felt that it wasn’t any more difficult than level 1.
I wouldn’t really say you have to master regression-- just have a good understanding of the basics. The curriculum doesn’t cover too much for the QM.
I don’t think you’re missing anything. I felt similarly to you, and I passed L2 just fine. I also know some other people on here felt the same way as you (so it’s not uncommon). The only thing you should do is avoid getting ahead of yourself. You haven’t passed the exam until you have, so make sure to keep focused, even if you’re crushing the practice material.
You’re right, the content of the Level II is exam is not particularly difficult. But the difficulty lies in a couple of areas. First, the pure breadth of the content is quite large, so it’s a lot of knowledge to have in your head and ready for quick access over the 6 hour exam. Also, the exam focuses on more on the how, rather than simply being given data and plugging it into a formula. Calculations are very rules based, and the data is presented in a vignette that takes practice to get used to how to identify it quickly and correctly. Pulling the correct information out of a case is where many canditates struggle I think, because it’s not always cut and dry. Level II focuses more on application of the concepts, rather than the concepts themselves. It’s a lot to know and remember, and there’s a lot more “big picture” to it in how the various readings relate to eachother.
My best advice is not to take it lightly, and leave a lot of time for practice questions and mocks. Seeing all kinds of ways material can be tested can make a big difference.
Thanks for the answers! I will go further. Aim to finish all topics end of march and then have april and may for repetition and practice, practice, practice
Strongly motivated right now, hope it lasts until beginning of june
This is where I would disagree, and I believe the original post mentioned that the material wasn’t as broad-- it was more deep per topic. This is my opinion, too. The material is less spread out, but it’s more involved for each topic. When I studied for L2, I was quite happy with the synthesis of material across different books in the curriculum. It started to become more about learning application of the ideas, rather than compartmentalizing them.
I really agree that accurate data extraction is a huge part of beating the exam. Practice, practice, and more practice will help people hone this skill.
IMO, knowledge of data extraction from often rude and issuficient mattery is the key feature of any analyist.
Otherwise am suffering from those “depths” of L2 curriculum. Sometimes, during practicing have feeling that always using incorrect formula and wrong approach and EOC results are not as supposed to be. I should invest approx. 40 % more energy and study hours to catch L2 than I invested in L1. Vignette form is also problem for me and still have not found a manner to sucessfuly read and understand facts in questionary vignette form by first attempt (identified the problem as language barrier since ENG is not my language).
Your posts with L2 strategy elaboration are motivating.
Yeah the material certainly goes deeper than L1, but man, in my eyes it’s pretty broad as well, at least in terms of quantity of knowledge. Maybe our individual definition of breadth is different.
Or, it could be an indicator of why you passed last year with a 70+ in all subjects and I missed it with a Band 9. I’d imagine that the greater mastery you have of the content the smaller is seems.
It’s quite possible we see the same thing from a different perspective.
I think it’s pretty likely that we have different ways of viewing the material. I also think that different backgrounds could play a role in exam outcomes!
FRA is hard for me but it was hard for me in level 1 - i can’t wait to get done with FRA already done with equities should finish FRA by tomorrow I am hate accounting
I felt the same way when I started preparing for Level 2, nothing spectacular, even Equity and Derivatives are OK…but currently I’m working on the item sets and they obviously do not have the same structure as the level 1 questions, so I think you will revise your opinion when you start working on the item sets.
I wouldn’t say L2 feels easier for me, but I feel a lot more in control. Had little financial background. A lot of L1 felt like memorizing formulas and definitions because you want to pass. The depth that L2 goes into is satisfying because you truly learn the thing. For me, it’s like, I’d rather hike up Kilimanjaro for three 10-hour days than ride a stationary bike for three 1-hour days. I can’t say L2 is easier. More hours, more head-scratching. But when I crack something, there’s a satisfaction unlike what flash cards can give.
