Sign up  |  Log in

Expected MPS Range

What would you guys say is a reasonable expectation within which the MPS will most likely be?

Maybe something like: 64-68?

Top Instructors, Best-in-Class Content, Partner Until You Pass Guarantee

Between 0 and 100

68 seems high. 65.

I guess it is 70% of teh top 1%.  so if we said some people can get 108/120 which is 90%.  Then the MPS should be 70% of 90% which is 63% or 75/120.  This is just my best calculated guess.

This was band 10 last year..hopeful this year though!

Q#

Topic

Max Pts

<=50%

51%-70%

>70%

-

Alternative Investments

18

*

-

-

-

Corporate Finance

36

-

*

-

-

Derivatives

36

-

*

-

-

Economics

18

-

-

*

-

Equity Investments

72

-

-

*

-

Ethical & Professional Standards

36

-

*

-

-

Financial Reporting & Analysis

72

-

*

-

-

Fixed Income Investments

18

-

-

*

-

Portfolio Management

36

-

*

-

-

Quantitative Methods

18

*

-

-

MPS will surely be higher than 80/120 considering Band 10 scores of last 3 years. It will definitely not be less than 80/120. Look at the score posted above as well. This guy cud hv well scored 78/120

well, 80/120 is 66.6% and this is somehow high.  I am more towards 75/120 or around this range.  

Good Luck for everyone!

My guess is 78/120 +/- 2 depending on the curve.

magedmagdy wrote:

well, 80/120 is 66.6% and this is somehow high.  I am more towards 75/120 or around this range.  

Good Luck for everyone!

Man I wish MPS low as possible but to say the truth 62.50% should be ‘no pass’. The only safe figure I think is 70%. Because there are only 120 questions with 20 stories. You can have  66.67% which is 4/6 per story. Then either they allow some 3/6 stories as pass or they allow min 4/6 with some 5/6-6/6 as pass. 62.5% is 5 stories of 3/6 - looks way to ideal for a student (sad to say)

It’s called vignettes.

I wouldn’t say the MPS drops below 65%, especially for an exam of this year’s caliber. It should be on the high end of historical ranges.

Corrcet me if I'm worng

MrSmart wrote:

It’s called vignettes.

I wouldn’t say the MPS drops below 65%, especially for an exam of this year’s caliber. It should be on the high end of historical ranges.

With more candidates they will encrease MPS to reduce absolute number of charter holders. 160k* 0.39

I’d say 80/120 is the MPS.

Chumulet wrote:

MrSmart wrote:

It’s called vignettes.

I wouldn’t say the MPS drops below 65%, especially for an exam of this year’s caliber. It should be on the high end of historical ranges.

With more candidates they will encrease MPS to reduce absolute number of charter holders. 160k* 0.39

The MPS is a relative measure. And it never goes above 70%, and doubtfully gets even close.

They make exams or curriculum harder for that purpose.

Corrcet me if I'm worng

By the way, they might give credits to all students for couple of questions in case there was an error or unclear answers.  or if everyone got it wrong for example.  75/120 , 76/120 is my range.  

There might be some adjustment for Ethics too.  If did really well in Ethics you might get a minor adjust to life you up , and teh opposite way if you did really bad, they will bring you down.

I think the MPS is 55% based on prior experience

blackscholesvol wrote:

I think the MPS is 55% based on prior experience

If the MPS dropped to 55% I probably will drop out of this program.

band2 wrote:

blackscholesvol wrote:

I think the MPS is 55% based on prior experience

If the MPS dropped to 55% I probably will drop out of this program.

i want my refund

65% tops. I think it will be 62-64%.

takeawalkk wrote:

This was band 10 last year..hopeful this year though!

Q#

Topic

Max Pts

<=50%

51%-70%

>70%

-

Alternative Investments

18

*

-

-

-

Corporate Finance

36

-

*

-

-

Derivatives

36

-

*

-

-

Economics

18

-

-

*

-

Equity Investments

72

-

-

*

-

Ethical & Professional Standards

36

-

*

-

-

Financial Reporting & Analysis

72

-

*

-

-

Fixed Income Investments

18

-

-

*

-

Portfolio Management

36

-

*

-

-

Quantitative Methods

18

*

-

-

If this is a Band 10 score, i have a shot at passing…

How do you read this?

"Great moments are born from great opportunity."

^^
18 (6 questions worth “3” points)
- <50%
-50><70%
->70%
the fourth mark just means next section in the format above

Indeed a band 10 score. If I had paid a little attention to ethics, things would’ve been different.

300 hours has done some good work on this and found the MPS at 67% and 63% in years past. I’d say either or this year, but one of those numbers. If you’ve done any studying on how they score the test (the Modified Angoff Method where experts have to take the test too) plus the minimum 70% score of old days, it seems the score is marked down 5% or 10% from the 70%. It’s likely those who know the material well will get a 90% or 95%, leading to a 5% (~3 percentage points to 67%) or 10% (leading to a 7 percentage point markdown to a MPS of 63%). 

Here’s info on the Angoff model for score setting.

https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handou...


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

CFAbeatmeup wrote:

300 hours has done some good work on this and found the MPS at 67% and 63% in years past. I’d say either or this year, but one of those numbers. If you’ve done any studying on how they score the test (the Modified Angoff Method where experts have to take the test too) plus the minimum 70% score of old days, it seems the score is marked down 5% or 10% from the 70%. It’s likely those who know the material well will get a 90% or 95%, leading to a 5% (~3 percentage points to 67%) or 10% (leading to a 7 percentage point markdown to a MPS of 63%). 

Here’s info on the Angoff model for score setting.

https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handou...

At first, I thought I could rely on their data, but they gave the expected MPS between 58-62% in 2012 and it turned out that a guy with minimum possible score of 76/120 failed to clear the exam.

While they would have done a pretty good work indeed, but still 63-66% is the range which puts you in quite an unstable territory.

love_lord’s wrote:

CFAbeatmeup wrote:

300 hours has done some good work on this and found the MPS at 67% and 63% in years past. I’d say either or this year, but one of those numbers. If you’ve done any studying on how they score the test (the Modified Angoff Method where experts have to take the test too) plus the minimum 70% score of old days, it seems the score is marked down 5% or 10% from the 70%. It’s likely those who know the material well will get a 90% or 95%, leading to a 5% (~3 percentage points to 67%) or 10% (leading to a 7 percentage point markdown to a MPS of 63%). 

Here’s info on the Angoff model for score setting.

https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handou...

At first, I thought I could rely on their data, but they gave the expected MPS between 58-62% in 2012 and it turned out that a guy with minimum possible score of 76/120 failed to clear the exam.

While they would have done a pretty good work indeed, but still 63-66% is the range which puts you in quite an unstable territory.

I’m certainly not here to defend 300 Hours; as analysts we should change as the data does – but may I ask where you got the minimum passing score for this guy? Instead of outright rejecting 300 Hours hypothesis, could these situations be possible?

1. The calculations could be wrong, specifically in regards to weights. The CFA has some play in their weighings and the guy could have used a wrong weight set to calculate his mPS (little m = minimum). And also I assume you are discussing L1 (eventhough you gave 120 –the L2 number of questions), because the L2 MPS they gave in 2012 was higher than the one you just proffered (300 Hours reports 2012 L2’s MPS at 63%, no range). L1 is a single question format and perhaps easier to deviate weight wise from standard weighting. If you did mean L2, I’d assume on my limited knowledge he’d be a band 10 failure or a slight pass.

2. I’d hate to broach the subject, but is it possible your “guy” simply lied? Considering I don’t think your scores are supposed to be shared (although I’m not 100% certain)…it’s possible for him to fudge his results to save face. Saying you made a 70%+ versus below 50% in FRA changes things.

3. Finally, if you did mean L2 things get hairy on the edge of any cutoff. Although he had a 63.3%, rounding issues or an ethics adjustment could have sunk him. My assumption is the “ethics adjustment” is a tie-breaker of sorts for those on the edge – although I could totally be wrong. My point is you probably can’t rule out 300 Hours as totally wrong on one guy with a supposed .3% passing score with no weights given.

Just my $0.02–feel free to toss into a wishing well.

CFApunchedMeInTheFace

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They sample tens or “hundreds” of survey responses and find a best fit for the data..pretty standard stuff. only problem is if someone lies.

My own theory is that CFAI has other grading criteria that are undisclosed..

CFAbeatmeup wrote:

love_lord’s wrote:

CFAbeatmeup wrote:

300 hours has done some good work on this and found the MPS at 67% and 63% in years past. I’d say either or this year, but one of those numbers. If you’ve done any studying on how they score the test (the Modified Angoff Method where experts have to take the test too) plus the minimum 70% score of old days, it seems the score is marked down 5% or 10% from the 70%. It’s likely those who know the material well will get a 90% or 95%, leading to a 5% (~3 percentage points to 67%) or 10% (leading to a 7 percentage point markdown to a MPS of 63%). 

Here’s info on the Angoff model for score setting.

https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handou...

At first, I thought I could rely on their data, but they gave the expected MPS between 58-62% in 2012 and it turned out that a guy with minimum possible score of 76/120 failed to clear the exam.

While they would have done a pretty good work indeed, but still 63-66% is the range which puts you in quite an unstable territory.

I’m certainly not here to defend 300 Hours; as analysts we should change as the data does – but may I ask where you got the minimum passing score for this guy? Instead of outright rejecting 300 Hours hypothesis, could these situations be possible?

1. The calculations could be wrong, specifically in regards to weights. The CFA has some play in their weighings and the guy could have used a wrong weight set to calculate his mPS (little m = minimum). And also I assume you are discussing L1 (eventhough you gave 120 –the L2 number of questions), because the L2 MPS they gave in 2012 was higher than the one you just proffered (300 Hours reports 2012 L2’s MPS at 63%, no range). L1 is a single question format and perhaps easier to deviate weight wise from standard weighting. If you did mean L2, I’d assume on my limited knowledge he’d be a band 10 failure or a slight pass.

2. I’d hate to broach the subject, but is it possible your “guy” simply lied? Considering I don’t think your scores are supposed to be shared (although I’m not 100% certain)…it’s possible for him to fudge his results to save face. Saying you made a 70%+ versus below 50% in FRA changes things.

3. Finally, if you did mean L2 things get hairy on the edge of any cutoff. Although he had a 63.3%, rounding issues or an ethics adjustment could have sunk him. My assumption is the “ethics adjustment” is a tie-breaker of sorts for those on the edge – although I could totally be wrong. My point is you probably can’t rule out 300 Hours as totally wrong on one guy with a supposed .3% passing score with no weights given.

Just my $0.02–feel free to toss into a wishing well.

CFApunchedMeInTheFace

Cool down dude…have absolutely no intention of ridiculing 300 hours….i understand that no one can get 100% correct on data but my point simply is that any score less than 80/120 is simply not safe and may not even be sufficient.

i found this 2012 score on Page 5 of the thread “Official CFA L2 Results 2014” Somebody posted two scores, one failed band 10 which was this one and the other border line pass in 2013.

P.S. I cant vouch for the authenticity but i doubt what benefit could one have by posting this result an hour before official results of 2014 wud be out

And, the weights are also clearly given in the score on that page

MrSmart wrote:
The MPS … never goes above 70%, and doubtfully gets even close.

How do you know this?

Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.

Financial Exam Help 123: The place to get help for the CFA® exams
http://financialexamhelp123.com/

love_lord’s wrote:

CFAbeatmeup wrote:

love_lord’s wrote:

CFAbeatmeup wrote:

300 hours has done some good work on this and found the MPS at 67% and 63% in years past. I’d say either or this year, but one of those numbers. If you’ve done any studying on how they score the test (the Modified Angoff Method where experts have to take the test too) plus the minimum 70% score of old days, it seems the score is marked down 5% or 10% from the 70%. It’s likely those who know the material well will get a 90% or 95%, leading to a 5% (~3 percentage points to 67%) or 10% (leading to a 7 percentage point markdown to a MPS of 63%). 

Here’s info on the Angoff model for score setting.

https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handou...

At first, I thought I could rely on their data, but they gave the expected MPS between 58-62% in 2012 and it turned out that a guy with minimum possible score of 76/120 failed to clear the exam.

While they would have done a pretty good work indeed, but still 63-66% is the range which puts you in quite an unstable territory.

I’m certainly not here to defend 300 Hours; as analysts we should change as the data does – but may I ask where you got the minimum passing score for this guy? Instead of outright rejecting 300 Hours hypothesis, could these situations be possible?

1. The calculations could be wrong, specifically in regards to weights. The CFA has some play in their weighings and the guy could have used a wrong weight set to calculate his mPS (little m = minimum). And also I assume you are discussing L1 (eventhough you gave 120 –the L2 number of questions), because the L2 MPS they gave in 2012 was higher than the one you just proffered (300 Hours reports 2012 L2’s MPS at 63%, no range). L1 is a single question format and perhaps easier to deviate weight wise from standard weighting. If you did mean L2, I’d assume on my limited knowledge he’d be a band 10 failure or a slight pass.

2. I’d hate to broach the subject, but is it possible your “guy” simply lied? Considering I don’t think your scores are supposed to be shared (although I’m not 100% certain)…it’s possible for him to fudge his results to save face. Saying you made a 70%+ versus below 50% in FRA changes things.

3. Finally, if you did mean L2 things get hairy on the edge of any cutoff. Although he had a 63.3%, rounding issues or an ethics adjustment could have sunk him. My assumption is the “ethics adjustment” is a tie-breaker of sorts for those on the edge – although I could totally be wrong. My point is you probably can’t rule out 300 Hours as totally wrong on one guy with a supposed .3% passing score with no weights given.

Just my $0.02–feel free to toss into a wishing well.

CFApunchedMeInTheFace

Cool down dude…have absolutely no intention of ridiculing 300 hours….i understand that no one can get 100% correct on data but my point simply is that any score less than 80/120 is simply not safe and may not even be sufficient.

i found this 2012 score on Page 5 of the thread “Official CFA L2 Results 2014” Somebody posted two scores, one failed band 10 which was this one and the other border line pass in 2013.

P.S. I cant vouch for the authenticity but i doubt what benefit could one have by posting this result an hour before official results of 2014 wud be out

I’m not sure why you’d assumed I wasn’t “cool” in the first place and needed to cool down or I thought you were “ridiculing” 300 Hours. My tone was even keeled and everything I wrote was in the spirit of helpfulness. I’d say 99% of people who read that message would interpret it as friendly – I even touched base with you letting you know I responded. Perhaps there’s cultural/language differences (!?) that led you to think I was irascible? 

Thanks for sourcing that data – I want to test my Ethics theory. 

I agree with your 80/120 may not be enough (hence my 63 or 67 guess in my initial post)…but my MPS guess is only a hypothetical (as is yours) and it seems we both agree (66.66% not being enough, like 2014) and disagree (63% in 2013 and 2012). I just feel the Angoff Model and the former 70% cutoff is interesting when taken together along with 300 Hours’ MPS score estimates; I could be totally wrong though.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

CFAbeatmeup wrote:

love_lord’s wrote:

CFAbeatmeup wrote:

love_lord’s wrote:

CFAbeatmeup wrote:

300 hours has done some good work on this and found the MPS at 67% and 63% in years past. I’d say either or this year, but one of those numbers. If you’ve done any studying on how they score the test (the Modified Angoff Method where experts have to take the test too) plus the minimum 70% score of old days, it seems the score is marked down 5% or 10% from the 70%. It’s likely those who know the material well will get a 90% or 95%, leading to a 5% (~3 percentage points to 67%) or 10% (leading to a 7 percentage point markdown to a MPS of 63%). 

Here’s info on the Angoff model for score setting.

https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handou...

At first, I thought I could rely on their data, but they gave the expected MPS between 58-62% in 2012 and it turned out that a guy with minimum possible score of 76/120 failed to clear the exam.

While they would have done a pretty good work indeed, but still 63-66% is the range which puts you in quite an unstable territory.

I’m certainly not here to defend 300 Hours; as analysts we should change as the data does – but may I ask where you got the minimum passing score for this guy? Instead of outright rejecting 300 Hours hypothesis, could these situations be possible?

1. The calculations could be wrong, specifically in regards to weights. The CFA has some play in their weighings and the guy could have used a wrong weight set to calculate his mPS (little m = minimum). And also I assume you are discussing L1 (eventhough you gave 120 –the L2 number of questions), because the L2 MPS they gave in 2012 was higher than the one you just proffered (300 Hours reports 2012 L2’s MPS at 63%, no range). L1 is a single question format and perhaps easier to deviate weight wise from standard weighting. If you did mean L2, I’d assume on my limited knowledge he’d be a band 10 failure or a slight pass.

2. I’d hate to broach the subject, but is it possible your “guy” simply lied? Considering I don’t think your scores are supposed to be shared (although I’m not 100% certain)…it’s possible for him to fudge his results to save face. Saying you made a 70%+ versus below 50% in FRA changes things.

3. Finally, if you did mean L2 things get hairy on the edge of any cutoff. Although he had a 63.3%, rounding issues or an ethics adjustment could have sunk him. My assumption is the “ethics adjustment” is a tie-breaker of sorts for those on the edge – although I could totally be wrong. My point is you probably can’t rule out 300 Hours as totally wrong on one guy with a supposed .3% passing score with no weights given.

Just my $0.02–feel free to toss into a wishing well.

CFApunchedMeInTheFace

Cool down dude…have absolutely no intention of ridiculing 300 hours….i understand that no one can get 100% correct on data but my point simply is that any score less than 80/120 is simply not safe and may not even be sufficient.

i found this 2012 score on Page 5 of the thread “Official CFA L2 Results 2014” Somebody posted two scores, one failed band 10 which was this one and the other border line pass in 2013.

P.S. I cant vouch for the authenticity but i doubt what benefit could one have by posting this result an hour before official results of 2014 wud be out

I’m not sure why you’d assumed I wasn’t “cool” in the first place and needed to cool down or I thought you were “ridiculing” 300 Hours. My tone was even keeled and everything I wrote was in the spirit of helpfulness. I’d say 99% of people who read that message would interpret it as friendly – I even touched base with you letting you know I responded. Perhaps there’s cultural/language differences (!?) that led you to think I was irascible? 

Thanks for sourcing that data – I want to test my Ethics theory. 

I agree with your 80/120 may not be enough (hence my 63 or 67 guess in my initial post)…but my MPS guess is only a hypothetical (as is yours) and it seems we both agree (66.66% not being enough, like 2014) and disagree (63% in 2013 and 2012). I just feel the Angoff Model and the former 70% cutoff is interesting when taken together along with 300 Hours’ MPS score estimates; I could be totally wrong though.

Well, agree with Angoff method, and one thing is pretty much for sure. CFAI itself discloses that they use Modified Angoff method. I believe they must be taking 70% of the average score of top 1 percentile? If i assume, top 1% of the candidates may score 114/120 on an average (which is pretty high for 1%), even then, 70% of this score translates to around 66.5% which is 79-80/120.

Ethics Adjustment too plays a role but it plays negative role only when one gets < 50 on Ethics. I guess it is all neutral in the mid-range and positive in > 70 range.

And, I have misunderstood the tone of your message. May have to improve upon RC skills for GMAT scheduled later in Dec :)