After reading about people leaving the program in the level three forum, I started thinking about a need to handicap success in the program. Just too much time of someone’s life is wasted if they don’t get the charter. Yes, they are going to learn something, but ultimately they are looking for that evidence of fitness.
So what may be an indicator? I’m hypothesizing that those with a 700+ GMAT have a high likelihood of success in the program. Anybody out there with such a score wash out?
It has been shown that if you don’t well on the MCAT, odds are that you are going to struggle in med school. Side note: the USMLE has pass rates in the high nineties. Don’t do well in the math section of the SAT, engineering might not be for you.
Would be nice to be able to offer a potential candidate guidance on his or her chances of success in the program, just so they would know what type of risk they are taking with their human capital. Most don’t spend financial capital without handicapping the risk…
I scored 700 on the GMAT and it was a bad day because I was averaging around 740 on the practice tests. I just failed Level II for the second time (but will give it another shot next year).
I don’t find these tests comparable. The GMAT is a high-pressure aptitude test. The CFA exams are academic.
These two tests are not really comparable. The only way this methodology would be useful would be in filtering out candidates whose GMAT scores are so low that this indicates a degree of mental retardation or severe ineptitude in performing basic academic functions.
When you say “700 GMAT”, is that “studied 20 hours a week for six months and scored 700 on the GMAT”? Or “walked in with zero study time and scored 700 on the GMAT”?
Generally, I agree with inky. I don’t see much that the two had in common.
Just FYI - I had been out of school four years when I took the GMAT. Before that, I had gone to the hacksawest of schools with the hacksawest of undergrads, part-time, while in the Marines (letting my brain atrophy). I studied zero hours for the GMAT. And I scored right at the national average. I think that if I had actually studied or been using my brain for something more than a punching bag, who knows what might have happened?
The point is not if they are comparable. I agree they are not. The point is if one can help to predict performance on the other. The SAT, GMAT and MCAT are designed to help predict performance in certain academic programs. The SAT has a better than 0.4 correlation with undergrad academic performance which is still poor, but as good or better than any other predictor, except maybe AP exams. AP exams have shown to be good predictors of success for some academic programs. Undoubtedly, there is a positive correlation between GMAT performance and CFA program success. Is that correlation 0.1 or 0.4 or some other magnitude?
Do you believe this is true in predicting MBA program success as well? The chance of success in an MBA program is exactly what the GMAT was designed to handicap.
By no means am I suggesting there should be a mandatory filter; just a voluntary tool that a candidate could use. Only the candidate knows if they have the intangibles that would make a low assessment of success meaningless. If an assessment indicated that they may not have what it takes and the candidate also knows they are not a particularly motivated and/or hard worker, they may want to move on.
Again, only the candidate can assess the intangibles. If the candidate knows that nine out of ten people who scored x on an assessment failed to complete the CFA program, they would at least know they should ask themselves what makes me different than the nine. Will I spend more time? Did I just not prepare for the assessment? Etc.?
The GMAT primarily tests intelligence. It lacks a component to test work ethic (that’s what the rest of an MBA application is for). Since the CFA exams depend so heavily on work ethic, I would say that a correlation might exist since people usually take the GMAT because they are ambitious. But the relationship would be a spurious one. In other words, I doubt that taking the GMAT before taking the CFA exams would be an effective way of measuring odds.
I think a potential candidate can use any aptitude test (e.g. SAT/ACT/GMAT) or even their general function with complex tasks to determine aptitude, but would need to determine dedication to program completion as well.
Part of the reason for my opinion is that I think almost anyone can pass the CFA exam, given sufficient effort. It is not a very hard program. Therefore, distinguishing between 600 or 750 GMAT people is meaningless in predicting CFA success. It is only at very low GMAT scores when you determine that someone is just an idiot and has no chance of any academic success.
It is different for measuring business school success, because often, you must actually be intelligent to succeed in business school.
0.4? 0.1? The question is what is the correlation. I say somewhere around 0.4. You say 0.1?
What would be a good predictor of CFA performance? I agree dedication would be a great predictor of success, but colleges and corporations have historically had a hard time measuring dedication, so they have relied on other measures.
I would venture that almost 100% of charterholders could complete any MBA program. The reverse is not even close to true.
Are you suggesting there is not a difference in CFA program success rates of those that scored 600 and those that scored 750 adjusted for no other factor? zero correlation? I’d bet my life savings that it is in fact positive. I have no idea what the number would be, but positive no doubt.
A spurious correlation could be 0.1 or 1.0. Suppose some dude never got an MBA and didn’t intend to. If he took the GMAT in order to test his ability to succeed in the CFA program, I would suspect a very low correlation since the GMAT is an aptitude test, but the CFA exams primarily test work ethic. There may be a more meaningful correlation if you’re talking about someone who took the GMAT and is aplpying to top schools, because this person is more likely to be driven and have a strong work ethic.
I would think that a more meaningful correlation would arise from the ranking of the college(s) that the potential candidate attended (adjusting for affirmative action). Colleges use both aptitude and work ethic in their admissions.