What is this MPS and how is it calculated ? Any idea?
If I get 50 - 70 in 2 topics and above 70 in others s there any possibility to pass?
yes of course you can pass with 51-70 in two topics. Consensus seems to be that anything above 70% in aggregate is a guaranteed pass, and actual mps varies every year with most people estimating 62-68% and if your score is close to the MPS you will be subject to the “ethics adjustment” (i.e., they’ll pass you if you passed ethics and fail you if you didn’t). My review instructor, who is well respected and claims to have a database with thousands of results, seems to think 67-68% is almost always going to be a pass.
A big relief of that happens… Thank you very much …
is that a serious question? go look at the results thread from last year, ppl were getting 3 sections <50 and still passing. Bottom line, no one knows the MPS as its never been released. I’d say if you get 65+% you’re good, but who knows.
I didn’t mean to be funny or something… Seriously I was worried as I was not aware of the MPS n ol… But anyway thanks …
Hey guys,
Band 8 retakes here! Take it from me. I always scored low 60s on the mocks and my last year 40/60/80 score was %59. So comparing last year to this year and knowing the difficulty wise exams are comparable, I can say that MPS should be around %63-64.
Oh i see …Thanks you … Let’s hope for the best… All the best to you too
As with the toilet paper (electronic) that 300 hours provided us with, this sort of analysis is really tricky and probably isn’t adding value (not disagreeing with you instructors guess at the “pass guarantee”, but overall any confidence in his input about the MPS unless he’s been involved in setting the MPS). By tricky I don’t mean that someone with a careful plan will succeed, but rather, I mean that you don’t have very good data to actually calculate an MPS. You have score bands, and are trying to precisely estimate a “continuous” score for the MPS. The best estimates that can be done with data, I think are going to result in a decently wide range for the MPS, but even then, no one knows about certain grading methods that may or may not come into play for borderline candidates-- this sort of thing would mess with estimates. No one has provided a convincing argument for the 40/60/80 guesstimate…Even more of an issue is that no one, to my knowledge, has applied their theory to real grids to see how their classification works compared with actual P/F results-- no one has tested any proposed “model” that’s arisen from one of these. If I recall, it’s also the case that the number of questions for a given section, on L2, at least, has wiggle room, which means the exam weights move within a range.
I’m not saying it can’t be done, but the available data don’t seem conducive to the goal of estimating the MPS. People are engaging in a sharpshooting contest with a target they can’t see and will never be revealed.
Yea I agree with you. It sounded like he was using his data to estimate mps in any given year and his main point was he’s fairly confident it very rarely exceeds ~67% and often could have been as low as 62-63%. I’m not a huge fan of his in general but mostly just a teaching style issue, fwiw he has a math background (Phd) and is obsessed with the CFA.