Sign up  |  Log in

Mps opinions, anyone?

Goldmin wrote:

The only useful way to ascertain is to have a bunch of band 10 failures post their topic results with an estimation of their overall.

I worked out a worst case scenario based on the above and it came out to 63%

The problem with this is you don’t know how close band 10 is to passing. You’re riding the assumption that band 10 is right below the pass line and possibly the assumption that if “adjustments” to borderline candidates exist, that they don’t move the candidates score further from the pass/fail line.

There are plenty of scenarios for how grading is handled that make it tricky to do as you’ve suggested. The other issue stems from the qualitative data (score categories) that people are trying to turn into quantitative (numerical score to pass). Just because the category is 50-70% doesn’t make that a quantitative variable.

It’s pretty reasonable to say that the CFAI determines the MPS and a “grey area” range. Anyone at or above the MPS without adjustment passes. For the sake of context, say the MPS is determined to be 68%. People in the grey zone, say from 65-68%, excluding 68% on the upper side (so, less than 68%), are re-graded. Once people are re-graded, then any possible adjustments are looked at– if the ethics adjustment is real, then say anyone who “does well” in ethics is bumped into passing. Anyone remaining after adjustments is classified as failing. The scores for those moved can be adjusted to reflect the classification, or they could be left as is– that is a 66% with a positive adjustment may just be classified as passing with a 66% or the 66% may be given the points to meet the MPS. This clearly would also affect what we see. The idea behind a process like this is to have a clear dividing line where there is more of a difference between those who pass and fail, and it would show that a band 10 might not be “right there” by the pass line.

Of course, I have no idea if any of that is correct, but there isn’t any documentation on the exact process. I just think this scenario provides an example of how the process might go which further complicates these theories.

Drill all the fundamentals with Wiley's CFA experts Peter Olinto, Darren Degraaf and others.

Band 10 is right below the pass line - next step after band 10 is a pass. A score band of 10 indicates performance in the top 10% of people who did not pass the exam. The categories are 50% or less, 67%, and 83% or better.

What I would find concerning is how well Momoe did, 67% in 5 topics, 83% or better in three topics, and less than or equal to 50% in only two areas (one of them being AI which is typically a smaller area of examination) and he was still a Band 9 fail.

It’s all conjecture, just interesting to see and discuss nonetheless.

Where do you get these numbers?

Less than 50 on two topics can mean as low as 0 and as high as 49 on those two topics. 

Between 51-70 on five topics can mean as low as 51 on each of them to as high as 70 on each of them or anything in between. It doesn’t mean he had 67% on each.  

Over 71 on three topics can mean as low as 71 on each topic to as high as 100 on each topic, or again anything in between. It doesn’t mean 83% or better. Two topics with 0 points, 5 topics with 51 points and 3 topics with 71 points as a worst case can easily end up in band 9 or worse depending on the weights of the topics…

FYI, I found this topic by chance

https://www.analystforum.com/forums/cfa-forums/cfa-level-iii-forum/91353345

and 

firstandonlypost wrote:

My 40/60/80 scores:

  • L1: 63.7, maybe 100 hours of studying, didn’t even get through the entire curriculum once. Passed almost entirely based on industry background.
  • L2: 60.0 (probably a band 11 pass… <50% on fra), maybe 150 hours of studying with a majority of those hours taking the week off before the test and studying 12+ hours a day. Industry background helped alot. 
  • L3: 61.8, maybe ~225 hours of studying after I freaked out on band 11 pass on l2

I don’t know much about the 40/60/80 scores,  But according to firstandonlypost , the MPS is 60 (%)!!!

Honestly, I don’t believe it. But maybe what he said is true.

I repeat: CFA is the abbreviation of my last name!

PierreCFA wrote:

FYI, I found this topic by chance

https://www.analystforum.com/forums/cfa-forums/cfa-level-iii-forum/91353345

and 

firstandonlypost wrote:

My 40/60/80 scores:

  • L1: 63.7, maybe 100 hours of studying, didn’t even get through the entire curriculum once. Passed almost entirely based on industry background.
  • L2: 60.0 (probably a band 11 pass… <50% on fra), maybe 150 hours of studying with a majority of those hours taking the week off before the test and studying 12+ hours a day. Industry background helped alot. 
  • L3: 61.8, maybe ~225 hours of studying after I freaked out on band 11 pass on l2

I don’t know much about the 40/60/80 scores,  But according to firstandonlypost , the MPS is 60 (%)!!!

Honestly, I don’t believe it. But maybe what he said is true.

I would look at that more as he was at the upper end of the 50-70 range for topics in which he scored in that range rather than the MPS is 60. 

Secyh62 wrote:

PierreCFA wrote:

FYI, I found this topic by chance

https://www.analystforum.com/forums/cfa-forums/cfa-level-iii-forum/91353345

and 

103 Rue de Reuilly, 75012 Paris wrote:

My 40/60/80 scores:

  • L1: 63.7, maybe 100 hours of studying, didn’t even get through the entire curriculum once. Passed almost entirely based on industry background.
  • L2: 60.0 (probably a band 11 pass… <50% on fra), maybe 150 hours of studying with a majority of those hours taking the week off before the test and studying 12+ hours a day. Industry background helped alot. 
  • L3: 61.8, maybe ~225 hours of studying after I freaked out on band 11 pass on l2

I don’t know much about the 40/60/80 scores,  But according to firstandonlypost , the MPS is 60 (%)!!!

Honestly, I don’t believe it. But maybe what he said is true.

I would look at that more as he was at the upper end of the 50-70 range for topics in which he scored in that range rather than the MPS is 60. 

I thought 60 (%) was his score estimated by 40/60/80 method? So, the MPS according to his result and the 40/60/80 must be at most 60%, right?

ps: yes, if we take into account the error of the 40/60/80 method, MPS will be higher.

I repeat: CFA is the abbreviation of my last name!

isn’t it said that if you pass you pass with flying colors, and if you fail, you fail with flying colors.

in other words the probability of someone passing/failing by exactly one wrong/right answer is pretty much zero.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

PierreCFA wrote:

Secyh62 wrote:

PierreCFA wrote:

FYI, I found this topic by chance

https://www.analystforum.com/forums/cfa-forums/cfa-level-iii-forum/91353345

and 

103 Rue de Reuilly, 75012 Paris wrote:

My 40/60/80 scores:

  • L1: 63.7, maybe 100 hours of studying, didn’t even get through the entire curriculum once. Passed almost entirely based on industry background.
  • L2: 60.0 (probably a band 11 pass… <50% on fra), maybe 150 hours of studying with a majority of those hours taking the week off before the test and studying 12+ hours a day. Industry background helped alot. 
  • L3: 61.8, maybe ~225 hours of studying after I freaked out on band 11 pass on l2

I don’t know much about the 40/60/80 scores,  But according to firstandonlypost , the MPS is 60 (%)!!!

Honestly, I don’t believe it. But maybe what he said is true.

I would look at that more as he was at the upper end of the 50-70 range for topics in which he scored in that range rather than the MPS is 60. 

I thought 60 (%) was his score estimated by 40/60/80 method? So, the MPS according to his result and the 40/60/80 must be at most 60%, right?

ps: yes, if we take into account the error of the 40/60/80 method, MPS will be higher.

No it just gives you a base line estimate based on the ranges you input from your score matrix. For example, assuming a passing score and getting 50-70 on every single topic it would estimate my most likely score to be a 60. That doesn’t mean that I passed with a 60, it more likely means that my actual score within the 50-70 range was probably closer to 70 than it was 50 given that the general consensus is that a passing score is mid 60’s. 

Goldmin wrote:

Band 10 is right below the pass line - next step after band 10 is a pass. A score band of 10 indicates performance in the top 10% of people who did not pass the exam.

I haven’t seen it in anything provided by the CFA Institute, but I might’ve missed it. Can you provide a source for the bold statement? Otherwise, I think it’s possible that band 10 is just below the pass line, but I also think there are several scenarios where there is an appropriate buffer between passing and band 10, such as the scenario I detailed in my last post. I think it’s entirely possible that an initial MPS is set at x, and people between y and x are retabulated and evaluated for potential adjustments that push them over x to pass or below y to fail. This would mean the band 10 doesn’t necessarily indicate “just below the pass line.”

Secyh62 wrote:

 

No it just gives you a base line estimate based on the ranges you input from your score matrix. For example, assuming a passing score and getting 50-70 on every single topic it would estimate my most likely score to be a 60. That doesn’t mean that I passed with a 60, it more likely means that my actual score within the 50-70 range was probably closer to 70 than it was 50 given that the general consensus is that a passing score is mid 60’s. 

How are you making the determination of “most likely” for yourself?

I’d be curious to hear the rational why 60 is more likely than 65 or 55, for example.

tickersu wrote:

Secyh62 wrote:

No it just gives you a base line estimate based on the ranges you input from your score matrix. For example, assuming a passing score and getting 50-70 on every single topic it would estimate my most likely score to be a 60. That doesn’t mean that I passed with a 60, it more likely means that my actual score within the 50-70 range was probably closer to 70 than it was 50 given that the general consensus is that a passing score is mid 60’s. 

How are you making the determination of “most likely” for yourself?

I’d be curious to hear the rational why 60 is more likely than 65 or 55, for example.

I’m not making any determination, I’m just trying to explain how the 40/60/80 simulation works as I understand it. If all of your topics were scored 50-70 it would take the mid point as the most logical likely score. That doesn’t mean that you got a 60 and the MPS must be 60 as was implied in an earlier post. You’ll literally never know what your score was or what the MPS was but I would infer from someone getting all 50-70’s and passing that their score was closer to 70’s than it was to 50’s given that the general consensus is that the MPS is mid-high 60’s

My 2015 result:

Item Set

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
36
-
*
-

-
Portfolio Management
18
*
-
-

-
Quantitative Methods
18
-
*
-

2016 Result: 

Item Set

Q#
Topic
Max Pts
<=50%
51%-70%
>70%

-
Alternative Investments
18
-
-
*

-
Corporate Finance
36
*
-
-

-
Derivatives
36
-
-
*

-
Economics
36
-
-
*

-
Equity Investments
54
-
-
*

-
Ethical & Professional Standards
36
-
*
-

-
Financial Reporting & Analysis
72
-
*
-

-
Fixed Income Investments
36
-
*
-

-
Portfolio Management
18
-
-
*

-
Quantitative Methods
18
*
-
-

Both were band 10 fail

sonle0809 wrote:

My 2015 result:

Item Set

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
36
-
*
-

-
Portfolio Management
18
*
-
-

-
Quantitative Methods
18
-
*
-

2016 Result: 

Item Set

Q#
Topic
Max Pts
<=50%
51%-70%
>70%

-
Alternative Investments
18
-
-
*

-
Corporate Finance
36
*
-
-

-
Derivatives
36
-
-
*

-
Economics
36
-
-
*

-
Equity Investments
54
-
-
*

-
Ethical & Professional Standards
36
-
*
-

-
Financial Reporting & Analysis
72
-
*
-

-
Fixed Income Investments
36
-
*
-

-
Portfolio Management
18
-
-
*

-
Quantitative Methods
18
*
-
-

Both were band 10 fail

Wow. I can’t believe you failed both times with those matricies. Makes me feel even worse about results day lol.

.....woof

Seems very odd to me as well..Seen people publishing worse scores, yet managing to pass.  

But then again, you never know whether you got 52 % or 69 % or 100 % or 72 %…

For the low weighted subjects you can have a very close guess, but otherwise yes you are just guessing.

If the Ethics adjustment exists I think you have to be very very good at everything else if you don’t score >70% in Ethics.

I don’t understand how someone can manage to score > 70% on Deriv. and PM, but score < 50% on Corp. Fin. and Ethics. It makes no sense to me… 

Secyh62 wrote:

I’m not making any determination, I’m just trying to explain how the 40/60/80 simulation works as I understand it. If all of your topics were scored 50-70 it would take the mid point as the most logical likely score.

Do you agree with this assumption that 60 is “the most logical likely score” and if so, why is that the case? That’s what I am asking. If you disagree with that assumption of taking the middle value, then no need to justify. I just haven’t heard or seen any logic to defend that choice when people use it.

Secyh62 wrote:
That doesn’t mean that you got a 60 and the MPS must be 60 as was implied in an earlier post. You’ll literally never know what your score was or what the MPS was but I would infer from someone getting all 50-70’s and passing that their score was closer to 70’s than it was to 50’s given that the general consensus is that the MPS is mid-high 60’s

This is where the argument also breaks down in my opinion. We have no way to know the MPS, so the general consensus is based on conjecture and a garbage “study” done by 300 Hours. 300 Hours could be correct, but they way they conducted their research and wrote it up makes it pretty low on the totem pole for what I would consider evidence. There’s a ton they omitted. Anyhow, whether or not the MPS is closer to 70 than to 50, the logic of “most people think this without substantial evidence” doesn’t hold up in my opinion. The other issue is the MPS may have a wide range of variation from year to year, and again, we don’t know how things are handled behind the scenes.

I’m not trying to argue, but I don’t believe there have been many well explained reasons put forth. I’d be more inclined to take the average score from CFAI online topic tests and CFAI EOCs from people who did them without using notes and see how that turned out against their actual matrices. If it doesn’t fit well, find something new, but I think the MPS “studies” are usually pretty shaky and based on many assumptions. I have also yet to see someone attempt to apply a classification test to see how well the idea of a particular MPS holds up (i.e. how often are we correctly classifying those who pass and those who fail, based on our suspected MPS).

tickersu wrote:

Secyh62 wrote:

I’m not making any determination, I’m just trying to explain how the 40/60/80 simulation works as I understand it. If all of your topics were scored 50-70 it would take the mid point as the most logical likely score.

Do you agree with this assumption that 60 is “the most logical likely score” and if so, why is that the case? That’s what I am asking. If you disagree with that assumption of taking the middle value, then no need to justify. I just haven’t heard or seen any logic to defend that choice when people use it.

Secyh62 wrote:
That doesn’t mean that you got a 60 and the MPS must be 60 as was implied in an earlier post. You’ll literally never know what your score was or what the MPS was but I would infer from someone getting all 50-70’s and passing that their score was closer to 70’s than it was to 50’s given that the general consensus is that the MPS is mid-high 60’s

This is where the argument also breaks down in my opinion. We have no way to know the MPS, so the general consensus is based on conjecture and a garbage “study” done by 300 Hours. 300 Hours could be correct, but they way they conducted their research and wrote it up makes it pretty low on the totem pole for what I would consider evidence. There’s a ton they omitted. Anyhow, whether or not the MPS is closer to 70 than to 50, the logic of “most people think this without substantial evidence” doesn’t hold up in my opinion. The other issue is the MPS may have a wide range of variation from year to year, and again, we don’t know how things are handled behind the scenes.

I’m not trying to argue, but I don’t believe there have been many well explained reasons put forth. I’d be more inclined to take the average score from CFAI online topic tests and CFAI EOCs from people who did them without using notes and see how that turned out against their actual matrices. If it doesn’t fit well, find something new, but I think the MPS “studies” are usually pretty shaky and based on many assumptions. I have also yet to see someone attempt to apply a classification test to see how well the idea of a particular MPS holds up (i.e. how often are we correctly classifying those who pass and those who fail, based on our suspected MPS).

Ya I agree with you that taking the middle value isn’t a reliable estimate and that was the point that I was trying to make to the other poster. I also agree that there is no way to know the true MPS but given that we know 70 is a pass, and that we know people have passed with less than a 70 with the ethics adjustment, it seems reasonable to me that they could give you the ethics adjustment benefit on a max of 5% or one full item set. Essentially subbing in a good ethics item set for a bad item set somewhere else (at least for level 2). Further, I acknowledge that this is pure speculation on my part but speculation that seems reasonable to me given what we know for sure about the test. In all honesty if you’re not shooting for a 70 when taking these tests you’re doing it wrong, yet these MPS discussion posts show up every year and someone always wants to know if they can pass by getting less than at least 4 out of every 6 questions right. Which to me the answer should be no.

Secyh62 wrote:

Ya I agree with you that taking the middle value isn’t a reliable estimate and that was the point that I was trying to make to the other poster.

Makes sense now!

Secyh62 wrote:
I also agree that there is no way to know the true MPS but given that we know 70 is a pass, and that we know people have passed with less than a 70 with the ethics adjustment, it seems reasonable to me that they could give you the ethics adjustment benefit on a max of 5% or one full item set.
Where do we know 70% is a pass? I had heard a rumor that there was once a note on the CFAI website that no one has ever failed with at least a 70%, but I never saw it myself, unfortunately.

Secyh62 wrote:
Essentially subbing in a good ethics item set for a bad item set somewhere else (at least for level 2). Further, I acknowledge that this is pure speculation on my part but speculation that seems reasonable to me given what we know for sure about the test.
It’s an interesting idea, though. I think they would have an internal set of criteria for how and when to apply and adjustments, if they exist.

Secyh62 wrote:
In all honesty if you’re not shooting for a 70 when taking these tests you’re doing it wrong, yet these MPS discussion posts show up every year and someone always wants to know if they can pass by getting less than at least 4 out of every 6 questions right. Which to me the answer should be no.

I agree with you. I think too many people focus on just passing the exam rather than actually understanding the material. They want the trophy but don’t want to work. I think if people focused more on real learning, not the crap bullet points put in Sch weser, there would be many more people passing. Without any scientific rigor to this claim, I have observed that people using the curriculum tend to pass in fewer attempts per level than those using third party materials as the main source. Not sure how that would stand up if quantified, and I haven’t even begun to think of confounding variables if that result did show up in the data.

I just sort of hate the topic of MPS. The only objective thing I feel like any candidate has been presented with is that 70 percent is a known raw score guaranteed pass. I have heard stories of high 50s on CFAI mocks and people passing. Tons of things to consider in that grey area. I think 67 across the whole test considering the difficulty of it I probably 90 percent of the time a passing score. 

Would be awesome to have a tiered system of something like, “Definite passing students 70 or above get results emails in half the regular time”. Bet pass rates would go up also -_-

tickersu wrote:

Secyh62 wrote:

Ya I agree with you that taking the middle value isn’t a reliable estimate and that was the point that I was trying to make to the other poster.

Makes sense now!

Secyh62 wrote:
I also agree that there is no way to know the true MPS but given that we know 70 is a pass, and that we know people have passed with less than a 70 with the ethics adjustment, it seems reasonable to me that they could give you the ethics adjustment benefit on a max of 5% or one full item set.
Where do we know 70% is a pass? I had heard a rumor that there was once a note on the CFAI website that no one has ever failed with at least a 70%, but I never saw it myself, unfortunately.

Secyh62 wrote:
Essentially subbing in a good ethics item set for a bad item set somewhere else (at least for level 2). Further, I acknowledge that this is pure speculation on my part but speculation that seems reasonable to me given what we know for sure about the test.
It’s an interesting idea, though. I think they would have an internal set of criteria for how and when to apply and adjustments, if they exist.

Secyh62 wrote:
In all honesty if you’re not shooting for a 70 when taking these tests you’re doing it wrong, yet these MPS discussion posts show up every year and someone always wants to know if they can pass by getting less than at least 4 out of every 6 questions right. Which to me the answer should be no.

I agree with you. I think too many people focus on just passing the exam rather than actually understanding the material. They want the trophy but don’t want to work. I think if people focused more on real learning, not the crap bullet points put in Sch weser, there would be many more people passing. Without any scientific rigor to this claim, I have observed that people using the curriculum tend to pass in fewer attempts per level than those using third party materials as the main source. Not sure how that would stand up if quantified, and I haven’t even begun to think of confounding variables if that result did show up in the data.

Truthfully I have never seen with my own eyes anything from CFAI that said 70+ is a sure thing pass but have seen that quoted many times. I think its reasonable to assume that 70+ is the safety zone though given that the ranges they give you for your score are <50, 51-70, 70+. 

I also agree with your second point, I have felt more prepared and came away with better depth on topics when reading straight from CFAI. Schweser and others are best used as a supplement in my opinion. 

Goldmin wrote:

Band 10 is right below the pass line - next step after band 10 is a pass. A score band of 10 indicates performance in the top 10% of people who did not pass the exam. The categories are 50% or less, 67%, and 83% or better.

Right but the fact that you are in the 10% of people who did not pass does not necessarily mean that you are very close to the one who passed with the lowest mark.

There may indeed be in theory a gap between the last guy who passed and the first guy who failed. so the evaluaton of the grade of a band 10 does not necessarily help to figure out what the MPS was.

Part of the mystery is I think everything is relative.  On the CFAI website, it states:

For example, candidates in higher score bands may have topic area performance summaries that resemble that of a passing candidate.” 

Meaning you could possibly have someone that failed, Band 10, have results that look pretty much or exactly like someone that passed.  So then why did one fail and one pass?

The thing is, I think the way they do the performance summary is that they are also basing that on which group you’re in, the pass or fail group. 

Meaning the >70% in the fail group doesn’t equal the >70% in the pass group.  So in the pass group, >70% could mean on average those folks got 5 out of 6 right but in the fail group, it could only mean 4 out of 6 right. 

Doesn’t sound like much but do that for each topic and it adds up quick.  I could be wrong on this, but that is my impression as I thought I read something along those somewhere though I’m unable to find it to reference…

What I think they mean is that even though they may have the same score matrix, the person who passed has higher scores in each category (e.g. if both have >70  in some category, the failed person may have 71 points, the passed person 99), so really it’s the total that counts.

Let’s say it’s an item set and the weighting for the whole exam is 5%, so it’s just one vignette. if you score between 51 and 70 that means you got 67%. 4 out of 6 questions answered correctly. There is no score of 51 or 70, it’s just 67. That’s what I thought anyway.

Agreed, it is entirely plausible that there is an indeterminate buffer zone, just as it is entirely plausible there is not, and everything I said is largely subjective, so band 10 doesn’t necessarily imply that is just below the pass lin, I just think it is. I don’t have evidence other than analyzing the scores of people who passed, and people who were band 10 fails (I obviously don’t have a large amount of data here!) and the difference typically seems to be negligible.

It’s just one theory and I acknowledge the criticism and agree that what say is not necessarily factually correct as nobody can confirm it. Happy to discuss your opinion on the topic too.

Hello folks,

Please understand that 40/60/80 score makes an assumption that you scored in the middle of the range. For example, if you scored between 51 and 70 in EQUITY, The calculation of 40/60/80 assume your score is 60% in EQUITY. However, actually your score in EQUITY could be anything between 51 and 70. So the 40/60/80 score is only an approximate indication of your score but your actual score could be anything below or above your 40/60/80 score.

sydneyguy wrote:

Please understand that 40/60/80 score makes an assumption that you scored in the middle of the range. For example, if you scored between 51 and 70 in EQUITY, The calculation of 40/60/80 assume your score is 60% in EQUITY. However, actually your score in EQUITY could be anything between 51 and 70. So the 40/60/80 score is only an approximate indication of your score but your actual score could be anything below or above your 40/60/80 score.

I think this is all well understood. The issue is that the assumption doesn’t really have a reasonable explanation floating around with it for people to evaluate. Further, no one has taken the method and attempted to classify people as pass/fail from the “estimated MPS” while comparing this with the actual results of pass fail. In fact, the CFAI had supposedly said, at one time, that no one who scored at least 70 has failed. Why not make a simple assumption then that if someone has failed, the highest they scored is 69%, and use this to help in coming up with a potential “score” and eventual “MPS”? At least this would be based in something the CFAI supposedly stated.

Another issue, which I believe may have been brought up in the past, is that we don’t know what >70% stands for on the score matrix… does it mean >70% raw score or >70% of the highest score or of the average of the top 10% of test takers on that exam? I may have missed this if we have actual documentation of what it means, but if not, that throws another monkey wrench into this one.

I failed band 10 last year and compared my score matrix with other ( few) failed band 10 candidate’s score matrix. Remarkably the score line was  around 62-63.333% . So MPS definitely was above 64% 2016 exam for Level 2 but not 70% or above.  Yes I used 40/60/80 rule ( tabulated myself) but I don’t think it will produce very significant / different in scores if you use any other methodology. For instance majority of the sections have lower weight , like 6 questions or 12 questions and you don’t have to break you head to infer someone’s score in the particular section. If someone score more than 51% in a 6 questions section  , the maximum he/ she could have scored 4 only. FRA and equity may  have higher weight but what is the difference once you have crossed the 71%? I don’t think large number of people can score 90 and 100%. Exam year 2013 someone passed with 4 failed sections and that person might have scored 63% at the best . So  I don’t buy the argument that MPS should be in the range of 70%. Most of the sections are interconnected ( FRA and Equity, & Derivative and economics and FI) so someone scoring very low in Derivative is not going to score very high in FI or economics ( it means some score 50% in derivatives and scoring 100% in FI is hard to believe).