You shouldn’t have to rely or lean on mental supplements to study for these exams. Have some self-respect and discipline!
Not everyone has a choice.
Besides, it’s a fair game.
If you are diagnosed with ADHD or something else, fine. But for those who aren’t…then why? Can’t do it of their own wit? Fair game, sure. Respectable? No.
^Anyone obtaining / taiking controlled substances without a script is in violation of federal law. I wouldn’t call that “fair game.”
In the US.
Maybe not in Egypt.
Murica
MrSmart’s Negypt.
I’m sorry, it’s still a fair game. Whether or not your federal government controls the substance has nothing to do with the exam. If you have problems studying for the exam and cannot get stimulant drugs as a last course of action, then sucks to be you. That doesn’t make it unfair.
Nor does your ability to get stimulant drugs make it fair.
My ability to get my hands on them is irrelevant.
Using that logic, it’s also unfair that you live in a more developed country, get better education, more rich than I am, study using your first language, have a beautiful girlfriend, have a CEO father with connections on wall street, born with greater mental capacity, or take expensive preperation courses.
In the end, all you need is persistance and hard work to pass, everything else is supplementary. If it were truly unfair, we would have anti-doping policies for the CFA.
Life is even more unfair than an exam. That’s just how it is.
hugs not drugs
Speaking of irrelevant . . . .
if you’ve read the whole post, you’d see how it is actually relevant.
I did read the whole post.
Whether life is even more unfair than the exam isn’t relevant.
It is relevant. Initial conditions at the very least are a big part of life, which naturally spills over for an exam in this instance, in reply to you on getting my hands on stimulants.
Again, if it were unfair in an absolute sense beyond the scope of candidate variability, then it would have been tightly regulated for this exam, which is not.
Non sequitur of the month.
You rather seem oblivious towards the point.
Let me rephrase. If using mental stimulants were cheating, then it would have been clearly regulated in an exam enviroment. Barring the difficulty in controlling for such usage, I’m sure it would not have mattered in any case.
It is interesting that when someone disagrees with you, your first inclination is to believe that they don’t understand you (and that that’s their fault).
I understand your point completely. I merely find it absurd.
I have absolutely no problems with you disagreeing with me, this is why we are having this conversation in the first place.
My problem is you add nothing to the argument beyond vague criticsm.
Keyboard warriors hard at work.