Sign up  |  Log in

Expected MPS Range

S2000magician wrote:

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

How do you know this?

I thought CFAI specifically mentions on their website that no one who has ever scored > 70% has ever failed the exam. I believe this is pretty much consistent with Angoff Method too. Even if topper scores 100%, 70% of this score would be 70% or 84/120. So, MPS cant be more than 70%

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

S2000magician wrote:

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

How do you know this?

They officialy stated before that no candidate scored more than 70% and failed. You even said so yourself.

As for the latter, just a guess based on score estimates for candidates.

Corrcet me if I'm worng

Nope.  I scored FRA, ethics, Equity and quant and didn’t pass.  But i didn’t look at the other sections.  Still got 50 and above but failed.   

SG

MrSmart wrote:
S2000magician wrote:
MrSmart wrote:
The MPS … never goes above 70%, and doubtfully gets even close.

How do you know this?

They officialy stated before that no candidate scored more than 70% and failed. You even said so yourself.

I’ve said that it’s anecdotal, not official.

I’ve never heard anyone state this officially.  Do you have a link to a source?

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/

takeawalkk wrote:

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

You probably nailed it this time. I’d be happy with a Band 10 score after my performance…

Can someone confirm if my understanding of the ethics adjustment is correct..

Lets say they set a MPS of 65% or 78/120 correct answers..

This means that everyone that hit 75-77/120 is a fail “Band 10” but if those same people got 90%-100% on ethics get pushed into a pass??? What about someone that got 78/120 but got “zero” on ethics, do they get pushed to a fail?

1 or 2 answers short may be pushed for a pass; 3 short is a little stretch. juet my two pennies.

love_lord’s wrote:

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 :)

No worries bro; good look on the GMAT!

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

danv0330 wrote:

Can someone confirm if my understanding of the ethics adjustment is correct..

Lets say they set a MPS of 65% or 78/120 correct answers..

This means that everyone that hit 75-77/120 is a fail “Band 10” but if those same people got 90%-100% on ethics get pushed into a pass??? What about someone that got 78/120 but got “zero” on ethics, do they get pushed to a fail?

I’m not sure anyone can correctly answer your question as the CFA keeps that stuff close to the vest.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

S2000magician wrote:

MrSmart wrote:
S2000magician wrote:
MrSmart wrote:
The MPS … never goes above 70%, and doubtfully gets even close.

How do you know this?

They officialy stated before that no candidate scored more than 70% and failed. You even said so yourself.

I’ve said that it’s anecdotal, not official.

I’ve never heard anyone state this officially.  Do you have a link to a source?

CFAI has an interesting document on the whole process from their perspective. Ctrl+f “70” didnt find about the 70% rule of thumb in this document so I think its safe to say its not a current practice. 

http://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/cfaprogram/Documents/cfa_program_th...

I couldve sworn I read it in that doc or a similar one straight from CFAI a couple years ago though…

^^Realistically, someone mentioned it on this forum 5 years ago and its been repeated since

hock wrote:

S2000magician wrote:

MrSmart wrote:
S2000magician wrote:
MrSmart wrote:
The MPS … never goes above 70%, and doubtfully gets even close.

How do you know this?

They officialy stated before that no candidate scored more than 70% and failed. You even said so yourself.

I’ve said that it’s anecdotal, not official.

I’ve never heard anyone state this officially.  Do you have a link to a source?

CFAI has an interesting document on the whole process from their perspective. Ctrl+f “70” didnt find about the 70% rule of thumb in this document so I think its safe to say its not a current practice. 

http://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/cfaprogram/Documents/cfa_program_th...

I couldve sworn I read it in that doc or a similar one straight from CFAI a couple years ago though…

I do remember that I had read a similar but another PDF file that says No on who scored 70% failed. Now that wording is gone. What does this mean? Scoring 70% is not guaranteed to pass. Can anybody else affrm that you had read such PDF before?

I am 100% sure i read it in July 2013 on CFAI website itself.

So, that means, even 70% is not safe. OMG

Just saw this score of a guy on 2014 thread and who passed L2

Q#TopicMax Pts<=50%51%-70%>70%-Alternative Investments18*—Corporate Finance36–*-Derivatives36*—Economics18-*–Equity Investments72–*-Ethical & Professional Standards36–*-Financial Reporting & Analysis72-*–Fixed Income Investments18-*–Portfolio Management36-*–Quantitative Methods18*–

Just had a cursory glance over this score, I guess this can be very very close pass indeed. Perhaps the MPS

love_lord’s wrote:

Just saw this score of a guy on 2014 thread and who passed L2

Q#TopicMax Pts<=50%51%-70%>70%-Alternative Investments18*—Corporate Finance36–*-Derivatives36*—Economics18-*–Equity Investments72–*-Ethical & Professional Standards36–*-Financial Reporting & Analysis72-*–Fixed Income Investments18-*–Portfolio Management36-*–Quantitative Methods18*–

Just had a cursory glance over this score, I guess this can be very very close pass indeed. Perhaps the MPS

Wow, this one gives me hope…

First post on AF, woot!!! I distinctly remember reading on the CFAI website that nobody has ever scored 70 or above and failed. However, I also remember the website pointing out that there is no guarantee that this will be the case going forward.

If someone were to get 70+ on all topics and fail (obviously an improbable circumstance, but still possible), they will probably post on here to . Let’s hope we don’t find a post like that come August.

As for the ethics adjustment, who really knows? I’m glad they don’t have a FI or FRA adjustment though…

http://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/claritas/Pages/claritas_faqs.aspx

However, considering the historical range of passing scores for the Claritas Program candidates who can achieve 70% on the exam should feel confident about their performance.

Claritas is just like L2 :)

IHateMyLIFO wrote:

First post on AF, woot!!! I distinctly remember reading on the CFAI website that nobody has ever scored 70 or above and failed. However, I also remember the website pointing out that there is no guarantee that this will be the case going forward.

If someone were to get 70+ on all topics and fail (obviously an improbable circumstance, but still possible), they will probably post on here to . Let’s hope we don’t find a post like that come August.

As for the ethics adjustment, who really knows? I’m glad they don’t have a FI or FRA adjustment though…

If you score 70+ in all topics, then you most certinaly are above 70%, and hollistically, you are probably way more than 70%.

It’s safe to say the MPS is in the 60-70 range, based on aggregates of pass and fail samples.

Corrcet me if I'm worng

MrSmart wrote:

IHateMyLIFO wrote:

First post on AF, woot!!! I distinctly remember reading on the CFAI website that nobody has ever scored 70 or above and failed. However, I also remember the website pointing out that there is no guarantee that this will be the case going forward.

If someone were to get 70+ on all topics and fail (obviously an improbable circumstance, but still possible), they will probably post on here to . Let’s hope we don’t find a post like that come August.

As for the ethics adjustment, who really knows? I’m glad they don’t have a FI or FRA adjustment though…

If you score 70+ in all topics, then you most certinaly are above 70%, and hollistically, you are probably way more than 70%.

It’s safe to say the MPS is in the 60-70 range, based on aggregates of pass and fail samples.

I agree, just pointing out that this is the only way for sure to really know if the MPS went above 70. It would be devastating to get such a score. Plus the % of condidates that passed would surely be well below the historical average if that was the case thsi time around.

Its kind of nice to know know the MPS though–there are countless comments on trying to derive the MPS that have kept me quite entertained since the test.

Haha…it has kept us entertained…though on June 6, the discussion was whether or not MPS can be below 65%, now after 2 weeks, the discussion is on whether or not MPS can be below 70%

deleted, can’t be bothered to correct my calcs.. and it’s sunny outside.( sorry lovelords)

Some miscalculations you have done:-

1. Economics wud be out of 6

2. Max possible score in less than 50% range is exactly 50% since CFAI designates this as <=50.

IHateMyLIFO wrote:

MrSmart wrote:

IHateMyLIFO wrote:

First post on AF, woot!!! I distinctly remember reading on the CFAI website that nobody has ever scored 70 or above and failed. However, I also remember the website pointing out that there is no guarantee that this will be the case going forward.

If someone were to get 70+ on all topics and fail (obviously an improbable circumstance, but still possible), they will probably post on here to . Let’s hope we don’t find a post like that come August.

As for the ethics adjustment, who really knows? I’m glad they don’t have a FI or FRA adjustment though…

If you score 70+ in all topics, then you most certinaly are above 70%, and hollistically, you are probably way more than 70%.

It’s safe to say the MPS is in the 60-70 range, based on aggregates of pass and fail samples.

I agree, just pointing out that this is the only way for sure to really know if the MPS went above 70. It would be devastating to get such a score. Plus the % of condidates that passed would surely be well below the historical average if that was the case thsi time around.

Its kind of nice to know know the MPS though–there are countless comments on trying to derive the MPS that have kept me quite entertained since the test.

The MPS changes year-to-year. It’s based on the difficulty of the exam compared to previous exams. The idea is to balance the number of candidates passing with the same competency maintained throughout the years. No one really knows how it works. All we do know is that the pass rate is getting lower as the pool of candidates get bigger, and the passers are simillarly competent independant of the time the was exam taken.

Corrcet me if I'm worng

MrSmart wrote:

The MPS changes year-to-year. It’s based on the difficulty of the exam compared to previous exams. The idea is to balance the number of candidates passing with the same competency maintained throughout the years. No one really knows how it works. All we do know is that the pass rate is getting lower as the pool of candidates get bigger, and the passers are simillarly competent independant of the time the was exam taken.

This only makes half sense. If the idea is to maintain the same level of competency of those who pass, then the same % of candidates should pass each year. That’s not the case though. I’m not  sure why CFAI doesn’t determine the MPS to smooth out the fluctuations in pass rates—with hundreds of thousands of people taking the tests they can’t argue that the level of competency (on average) changes from year-to-year.  

As an anology, if 100,000 people went to take their drivers’ test and 75,000 people passed, you would expect that 75% of the people who took their drivers’ exam next year would pass, regardless of the number who tried. And however many who passed would be just as competent (as measured by reaching the minimum requirements of the driving test) as those who passed last year’s test.

CFAI basically tweaks the “minimum requirements of the driving test” each year. One year you’re allowed five moves to parallel park your car, the next year you’re only allowed four. Any apparently it takes about 8 weeks to do so.

I have no clue if anything I just typed made any sense, but that’s what i think of the whole MPS system.

CFAI states that they use the modified angoff method. Basically the method works like so:

I believe first and foremost, exam questions that had received numerous complaints (as to whether they were confusing or poorly formulated) in the 5 day period immediately following the exam are Investigated and credited to all candidates if they deem the question unacceptable, unfair, too confusing, or has more than one correct answer. 

Then, they put together a group of experts who look at each of the remaining questions on the exam as single items and the experts are asked for the percentage of CFA charterholders they would expect to answer each specific standalone question correctly. Not a CFA candidate, a minimally qualified PRACTICING charterholder. Each expert comes up with a probability or p-value and then the p-values from each expert are averaged for that particular question. Values are capped (because they know it’s impossible for every charterholder to score perfectly on any particular question) and floored (because anyone could guess and answer correctly). A possible range may look like .33 - .90 for instance but your guesses are as good as mine as to what they actually use.

In the modified angoff method, the experts discuss what they decided after submitting their values and have the option to adjust their p-value. I’m not certain, but they may only do this for questions where the standard deviation of the p-values is above a certain threshold (i.e. 10%). Once the experts have finalized their p-values, they find the mean p-value for that question. So a question may have an average p-value of .738, for instance, meaning the committee believes that 73.8% of charter holders would score correctly on that particular question.

Once all of the mean values for every question are determined, the means are added up and once again averaged. They then round either up or down to make it a whole number. This figure is the MPS for that exam.

I could be wrong on a detail here or there but from my understanding of what I read about modified angoff, that’s basically the jist of it.

So basically, if you want to try to estimate the MPS for any particular year, you’d have to guess what the committee of experts thinks about each question. This could also explain why ethics is such a crucial section despite its actual weight on the exam.

If anyone has a better understanding of modified angoff, please correct me if I’m wrong anywhere.

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

Source: http://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/cfaprogram/exams/Documents/exam_res...

Some of you may notice this source is the same company the powers CFAI’s online practice test questions. The Questionmark Perception product is fully explained on their website. It’s interesting because it also provides CFAI with analytics for each question. However, the extent to which they use this product is speculative at best for us candidates. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say they’re currently testing this software which could mean they modify the way they test us, analyze our results, even the frequency or ability to test candidates in the future. The conference centres with thousands of people and the growing number of candidates I’m sure poses a problem for the growth of the program and let’s face it, education is a business. And business is a-boomin’.

Source: https://www.questionmark.com/us/perception/Pages/default.aspx

love_lord’s wrote:

Just saw this score of a guy on 2014 thread and who passed L2

Q#TopicMax Pts<=50%51%-70%>70%-Alternative Investments18*—Corporate Finance36–*-Derivatives36*—Economics18-*–Equity Investments72–*-Ethical & Professional Standards36–*-Financial Reporting & Analysis72-*–Fixed Income Investments18-*–Portfolio Management36-*–Quantitative Methods18*–

Just had a cursory glance over this score, I guess this can be very very close pass indeed. Perhaps the MPS

Careful using this one, it has weird formatting.  The “max” passing score someone calculated from this score last year didnt omit the dash at the beginning/end of each entry for the 63% number.  This score could actually be as high as 77%. That does assume he went 24/24 in EQ and 12/12 in ethics.

of course, he could’ve scored as low as a 53%.

One other note in the estimation of MPS… We don’t know which questions get dropped. All of the previous speculating assumes there are no dropped questions. For instance, if a candidate scores 3/6 and one of their correct answers is dropped, it would become 2/5. Unless of course they credit candidates instead of dropping the question. Does anyone know for certain?

edit: answers are credited, not dropped. Never mind.

So do you guys think the MPS is always a flat number?

Or could it be something like 66.67?

It changes every year based on the difficulty perceived by their scoring committee. Check out my above post.

I know it changes, but is the MPS always rounded up or down to a whole number? Or can it be to a decimal?