Just wanted to know, is it actually a perk? Should people use it as a perk? As far as I know, CFAI doesn’t say anything about this, right?.
What do you mean by “perk”? You could tell someone that’s how you performed (if it’s true), but it doesn’t mean much. The test is meant to determine competency rather than rank those who pass (which is probably why “grades” or percentile information isn’t given out-- to avoid comparisons among candidates who passed).
Just study hard and do the best you can do on the exam.
You should be able to state it, if it is true, as a factual statement. You can’t indicate it implies anything though. Is it a perk? It isn’t a bad thing.
if you make a point of telling people your exam scores, on a pass/fail exam, you come across as a dbag.
i’m sure people have this on their resume/linkedin.
I mean really? you are asking if getting >70% in all subjects means anything hmm…
I passed all CFA exams on first attempt with grades over 70% and I’m vegan…
Being vegan implies superior abilities
You have superior investment management skills.
#obviously
Means you studied too much 
Thanks for your inputs. It is a good thing.
I see some sort of club convergence going on here. Good for you, you’ll make it among the cool.
What if the OP studied far less than most of his peers or what if the OP was determined to actually learn the material (as opposed to merely pass the exam)?
Hey I ran the 5k marathon this year, which was the first time I did it, and finished among the top 5%!
Hey I ran the 5k marathon this year, which was the first time I did it, and finished among the last 5%!
Hey I finally was able to finish the 5k marathon this year, which was my millionth trial, and finished among the last 5%!
We are not saying anyone is better than the other. We are just saying…!
Now I want to hire a runner, which one should I hire? hmmm…
Personally, all else equal, I would hire the first. You guys go ahead and hire the others.
what if another candidate has 1/10th the free time the OP had and still managed to pass? A ton of other variables shows that you cannot reasonably claim better skills or decision making abilities based on your score matrix.
My reply was in response to the typical “you studied too much” comment. I definitely agree it commendable if someone has a busier schedule and passes anyway.
Free time, as you put it, is somewhat irrelevant if it isn’t used to study.
My point was that two candidates could each study 100 hours for the exam; one passes with all sections >70%, and the other barely passes. I wouldn’t say either of them “studied too much” (or too little). They passed, which is what matters. I’ve heard this thrown around about the series 7 exam as well. “If you score greater than 80% you studied too much.” I’m not too sure what that sentiment is all about…You’re trying to build a knowledge base for a line of work you are interested in, so why not try to score as well as you can on the exam (to roughly indicate you’ve mastered the material).
My other point was that a candidate might actually have an interest in learning the material (in contrast with many people say they just want to pass). In this case, if the goal was to genuinely learn the material, I would say the score matrix of all topics >70% would be their best indication of the candidate achieving that goal (within the current, limited method of reporting results).
Agreed. I don’t believe I said anything that disagrees with that, though (or implies that you could claim such things).
I had the marathon reference by ZigZag in mind when i wrote the second part, i see your point and i agree a 100% with you.
“A ton of other variables shows that you cannot reasonably claim better skills or decision making abilities based on your score matrix.”
By this same logic you could also say that you cannot reasonably claim that who passed are “better” than those who didn’t.
I am simply looking at those grades solely as an input into the formula of figuring out who’s better. I hypothesize the score matrix input should have a coefficient that is significantly greater than 0 in that formula. Or, that there is a positive correlation between # of +70’s and IQ, for example…
=> +70’s on all subjects is a merit in a non dbag way…
Maybe that’s why even Charterholders are not allowed to exaggerate the meaning of the designation? Or even claim superior skills compared to those who do not hold it or are not pursuing it?
This is a P/F test, not A, B, C, etc… the game is to survive and move on, any point earned above MLS is worthless, thus represents a bad investment of time.
Marathon only refers to 42,195k distance. 5k race is not a marathon.
The metaphor is hopeless anyway.
It’s a pass/fail exam because the institute only wants to determine if a candidate is competent to move on. One of the goals of the program is to build candidates with a strong knowledge base. Not everyone is playing the same “game” that you are. Some people are trying to genuinely learn; their goal isn’t to barely muster a pass. Their goal is to have a broad knowledge base that won’t fade away months after the exam. I’ve seen quite a few people on this forum who fit that description, and I’m willing to bet that the majority of them won’t be retaking. A solid performance may be worthless to you, but for these people, it’s time well spent. As for the people who study less than their peers and nail the exam, it doesn’t sound like they made a bad investment (especially if they maintained their non-CFA program life).
I would argue your point by saying that if someone fails or needs to retake the exam by following the “just pass” mentality, then they have made a poorer investment of time and someone’s money.
My point, though, is that different people have different goals. You can’t judge the utility for others.