That is not your original question. You asked if the GMAT should be used to provide guidance to people who enroll in the CFA program. The answer to this is no.
Your “average” american high school student has just about no chance. The scope is too broad, too much information to retain, and they wouldn’t have the horsepower to make up for the lack of retention. Pure horsepower can make up for limited preparation. Preparation is not going to make up for less than average horsepower. Most average American high school students wouldn’t make it in UTEP. Hell, most didn’t even apply.
I don’t think he would use the word “crushed.”
I believe I wondered if it could be used as an indicator of success. And what else might be a good indicator. If the correlation is greater than zero, it might have value. You believe if we had the data, the correlation would be zero? We disagree.
Two buddies who graduates with bachelors degrees in music from Ohio State University decide to sign up for the CFA program. They decide to take the GMAT without studying to test their odds of success. Buddy A scores 600. Buddy B scores 700. Buddy A is much more driven to succeed, however, and studies 300 hours for Level 1 over six months. Buddy B likes video games and so he only studies 200 hours.
Which will have more predictive power? Buddy A’s work ethic that resulted in 100 more study hours or Buddy B’s aptitude which resulted in 100 more points on the GMAT?
I say Buddy A’s work ethic.
Now that would be interesting. But I wouldn’t use attended. I would use admitted. But again, most colleges weight aptitude tests and AP exams over their assessment of work ethic because of low correlations. Just a hard thing to measure, future dedication.
I would argue that an AP exam is a measure of work ethic since they are academic tests and demonstrate that a student is willing to take more difficult classes with a higher workload.
Which graduate program (if any) would probably be a good indicator. I think 68% of charterholders also hold an advanced degree. I would think that correlation is meaningful because an advanced degree typically assumes a strong work ethic (at least in an academic sense).
Now take your scenario, but you are not privy to work ethic knowledge. Who are you going to bet on? That is how correlations are determined. Sure you can adjust for other factors, but if you are trying to evaluate the GMAT’s predictive power, the other factors are not relevant.
I didn’t find the CFA exams difficult. If you’re well prepared, put in the hours, disciplined and have an average IQ, you will pass.
Fair enough. I would be interested in seeing the rates of success of those with advanced degrees compared to those without. My meaningless guess would be those with advanced degrees have higher success rates for the reasons you mentioned and higher aptitude, helps with everything, but i don’t think this information would help an individual candidate determine if they should attempt the program.
http://www.analystforum.com/forums/cfa-forums/cfa-general-discussion/91055700
http://www.analystforum.com/forums/cfa-forums/cfa-general-discussion/9704991
I will just reiterate what the above posters have said. CFA is not a test of your intelligence but your discipline and commitment to the program. If you do what’s required of you, then you are surely going to pass the CFA exams but that would not happen with the GMAT.
I crushed both level 1 and 2 but scored a very mediocre 600 on my first practice test (without any preparation). If there was indeed a correlation b/w CFA and GMAT, then I should have scored at least a 700.
P.s GMAT verbal is hell. Math is easy given you have an average IQ. Overall, I realized that GMAT is not that easy as people believe it to be.
Interesting, what score is needed to “pass” the GMAT? …And we must have a different understanding of what it means for something to have a correlation to a data set. I have no idea what you mean by you should have gotten “at least a 700” with no prep. Don’t see how that would demonstrate whether or not GMAT scores can help indicate potential success in the CFA program. Does anyone here actually believe that the CFA success rates, eventually pass all three levels, between those with sub-600 and those with 700+ scores are statistically identical? Possibly looking for some oceanfront property in Arizona?
There is not a consenus on this but the number 700 is spoken a lot.
My point was that I did not get 700 on the GMAT and yet I crushed level 1 and level 2 with ease. Now, if I were to believe in your hypothesis," I would not have a high likelihood of success in the program because I did not get 700."
I scored 710 on the GMAT
L1 - passed first try
L2 - passed on third try
L3 - passed on first try
That would be a success. You didn’t wash out.
First, I guessed that the success rates of those with sub-600 would be lower than those with 700+. This says very little about whether you as a single data point will have success. My point would even be valid if the success rate of those with the higher GMAT were 98% and those with the lower score were 93%. Statistics was and is covered in the curriculum.
Second, a single data point representing a 700 score or a 600 score or whatever says nothing about the correlation. Need to compare the success rates of one score level to another. Ringing a bell here? Preferably, I would like to see all of the data points. A couple hundred thousand would be nice. Somebody knows.
And finally, last I checked, the GMAT doesn’t have a passing score. There are people sitting in Harvard that scored your lowly 600.
charterholder? Really?
Okay, how would you define “high level of success”? Is it going 3/3 in the exams or is it just passing them, no matter how many years it takes you to pass them?
Yes, your point would be valid in that case and I doubt there would be a much big of a difference in reality as well. It is not enough to just have a correlation, it needs to be strong/high too. What we would get out of this argument if the correlation b/w gmat score and cfa success rate turns out to be something like 0.0002?
I’l give you that. Certainly not a clear response. I was wondering what the poster thought the correlation would be, as I asked in the previous post. And since we are not talking about those that take the GMAT and those that do not, the higher work ethic of those that take the GMAT would not be the unseen variable of the spurious relationship. Admittedly, “quantify spurious” is not clear and really doesn’t make sense… Qualify the spurious variable would have been better. I will correct the post. I was looking for the unseen variable given that his argument would work if he was claiming that those that score higher on the GMAT have a higher work ethic, and, therefore, would be the unseen variable causing the correlation. But thanks for the flame. I will be happy to return the favor. We will see if I’m good at it…