For the last 4 years since 2011, Level 2 Pass Rate has always been atleast 4-5 percentage points higher than Level 1. And the December Level 1 Pass Rate has mostly been touching the June Level 1 Pass Rate curve or above it.
For 2014, Dec Level 1 pass rate was as high as 44%. June 2014 Level 2 was also very high at 46%.
Guess, the pass rate for L-2 this June can be as high as 47-48% which may push the MPS down.
I guess the pass rate does play a role given that the CFAI would have a business interest in how many people are eventually able to pass the exam.
Obviously, they won’t disclose this factor, but then I guess board members have a final word over it as per their grading process as well. They take the final call.
There is definitely a pattern in the manner pass rates are adjusted if you look at the entire table. Look at the pass rates a decade ago.
The difference here is that you’re speculating, and I’m going by the material presented to us as factual and relevant.If you read their literature on the grading process, they don’t mention a target pass rate (unless I missed it). If they determine a minimum passing score based on competency (which is more or less what the procedure says), then they’re not touching the pass rate. I don’t think there is any mumbo jumbo going on in secret meetings of the board members. The business interest argument doesn’t really do it for me; sure, that’s a good idea, but it’s almost assuming that the CFA Institute is pushing competent candidates aside in the program by failing them, just so the candidates stay in the program.
I’m sure many people perceive themselves as competent in the material, but the raw exam score “ranges” show otherwise (whatever people estimate from score matrices or even mock exams). Keep in mind, most exams count <70% as a failing or poor grade–supposedly, people have passed the CFA exams with less. My point is that I don’t think the Institute messes with the pass rate (as a regular practice), because they don’t have to—the number of qualified candidates doesn’t likely increase directly with the total number of candidates. Also, if they are setting a minimum passing score based on competency using the method they describe, it wouldn’t be following the disclosed procedure to meddle with the pass rate. Using the historical pass rates doesn’t provide good evidence, either. The test has been changing over the last few decades, the program is changing, and more people are taking the exams. These factors make it pretty impossible for you to look only at the pass rates and say that changes reflect the CFAI adjusting pass rates to what they target. It just also seems likely that the exam or program has become more rigorous to raise the standard, the proportion of competent candidates has decreased as more candidates join the program, or some combination of these.
I think I was about 8 correct answers from passing last year…So any combination of that between the 20 item sets would have done it. Band 10 ( 1-3) questions from MPS Band 9 (4-6) Band 8 (7-9)
I agree, e.g. if L1 pass rates are high in one year, I think CFAI normalizes the pass rate for L2 the next year, to adjust for the larger candidate pool > by a small amount, maybe 1-2%, to clear the logjam, keep people in the program, and maintain revenue base. Of course it’s not disclosed.
So, are you saying that they will change the pass rate to “clear the jam” to prevent the candidates from building up at a certain level?
This would imply that some incompetent candidates are passed on to the next level, just to avoid a build up, and similarly, competent candidates could be held back to prevent there being a “shortage” of candidates at a level. They say passing is determined by competency(at least that’s what it seems like)-- your (conspiracy) theory would imply that competency isn’t the only factor. Then, it seems that the grading process isn’t objective, because the arbitrary “adjustment of the pass rate” isn’t based on objective measures of candidate preparedness.
Standard-setting study is an official research study conducted by an organization that sponsors tests to determine a cutscore for the test. To be legally defensible in the US, in particular for high-stakes assessments, and meet the Standards fro Educational and Psychological Testing, a cutscorecannot be arbitrarily determined , it must be empirically justified. For example, the organization cannot merely decide that the cutscore will be 70% correct. Instead, a study is conducted to determine what score best differentiates the classifications of examinees, such as competent vs. incompetent. Such studies require quite an amount of resources, involving a number of professionals, in particular with psychometric background. Standard-setting studies are for that reason impractical for regular class room situations, yet in every layer of education, standard setting is performed and multiple methods exist.
I’m as cynical of a person as you will find but I’m sure that in this case there is no hidden agenda regarding manipulation of the passing rate for the reason of making more money of exam fees. They make plenty of revenue from the over 100k members paying annual dues whichbi believe has a higher margin compared to the production of the exam… Its silly to think they are holding the passing rate 5-10% lower than what it “should be” because of exam fees. That marginal degree of “manipulation” is inconsequential it the larger picture. The passing rate to me is consistent with the broad scope of the exam, mainly most people “55%” did not put in the effort required.
Unless I’m misinterpreting something (I skimmed a bit), I’m glad to see the last few posts using a similar reasoning that there isn’t a secret manipulation of the pass rates. It’s amazing what you can learn if you actually read something credible (the information provided by the Institute…).
It’s also interesting to see how many people try to contradict information provided by the official source, even on curriculum topics at times…
Guys bumping the thread. Regardless of how the mps is set what do u think would be a fair MPS (60,65 etc)???
since having failed last year i could just estimate the following for this time:
Ethics,CF,Equity,PM,QM (>70)
Alt Inv,Der,FI (appx 67% each set) FRA (mid 50’s to 60) and ECO (<50). Do u think this would make a pass or ahould i start reading from a third party mterial for the 2016 sitting?? Really worried here
If you start studying 1 hour/day the day after results come out, you can put in more than 300 hours by next June. Plenty of time to study, starting later, even if you need to retake Level II. Enjoy these next couple of weeks.
Oh yeah, look at 2004-05 pass rates for L2-- jumped from 32% to 56%. Now are you saying the candidate pool in '05 was that much smarter? Then ask yourself, what happened two years prior-- CFA began testing L1 2x year. That put 2x number of L2 candidates in the pool. If that’s not clearing a logjam… so much for the “objective” criteria.
The L2 pass rate has been fairly consistent between 43 - 46% over the last several years. You’re stretching in implying that because the 2005 pass rate was high that CFAI arbitrarily passed more candidates. By that logic, CFAI can also “clear a logjam” by arbitrarily reducing the number of candidates who can sit for the Level II exam by failing more Level I candidates instead. But there’s no indication that Level I pass rates declined circa 2005. Nor were there materially more candidates sitting for the Level II that year than the previous year, given the number of Level I candidates who advanced and a higher potential # Level II of retakers. So there doesn’t appear to have been a “logjam” to begin with.
Maybe the 2005 class was exceptional. The 2006 Level III pass rate was 76%, higher than it’s been in a decade.
Did the program or testing change at that time as well? I’m not sure, which is why I’m asking (but I’ve heard some changes occurred mid 2000s). I don’t care that much to look into it, but I think it’s somewhat fruitless to look at the current literature on the examination and standard setting process and declare that something else is likely going on. Do we have the literature on the grading process from those prior years to see if there is any mention of a discretionary pass rate adjustment? Also, testing twice a year for L1 doesn’t necessarily double the number of Level 1 passers (and therefore L2 candidates). Candidates may test sooner or start studying later because the offering is twice a year–perhaps they flubbed both attempts because they could retake sooner…
What if offering L1 twice a year only caused more qualified candidates to pass through more quickly? Isn’t it possible that the pass rate for L2 would spike (even to a lesser extent) if the more competent people passed L1 in the shorter schedule (and presumably made quick work of L2)? What if the Institute reevaluated the grading process in tandem with the new testing policy (maybe making it easier to pass Level 2-- I’m assuming you meant level 1 offered twice and level 2 pass rate of 32% to over 50%)? I think a one time occurrence (spike in the pass rate) is unusual, and many things can cause or influence this, but I don’t think it’s enough to draw much of a conclusion at all. In an organization based around ethical principles, you’d be lucky to find so many people who wouldn’t blow this whistle on deceptive or incorrect practices…try taking a scientific/statistical approach-you’re dealing with a very small sample and a one-time occurrence for an unusual spike in the pass rate to support a conspiracy theory. It’s more likely that people want a reason for why they didn’t pass when they think they should have…