Does CFAI trying to prove a point here?

looking back at the vagueness of the exam questions, don’t you guys think CFAI is sending a message that you have to use CFAI study materials to cover your bets and pass the exams? Let’s be honest how many of us already thinking giving CFAI books a shot if we fail? I personally found the exam very easy than last year and at the same time very vague, tricky and specific.

If I fail, I will definitely have to give the CFAI books a shot. (I only used the schweser notes).

I used both for some sections, and Schweser for others. CFAI books are very vague, some sessions in Schweser were overcomplicated. next time (hopefully L3) I will only read Ethics and practice problems by CFAI

I used only the books and Qbank. I banged out L1 no problem. I dont think its a question of texts vs study sources…i truly believe the questions are not well worded. Example…the question regarding the biggest threat to a differentiator. Per the book…the answer is not achieving cost parity. However…in the exam, they used to word proximity. I clearly knew the question…but the simple fact that they used proximity as opposed to parity threw me off. The difference between parity and proximity (in my mind) is significant in the world of business and it could be the difference between a successful firm and a firm that fails. Crap like that…so pissed.

Pass or fail I will use Schweser again, but will start studying in early December rather than early February.

I don’t think reading the CFAI text would help with the wording on the exams. They were vague regardless of what you read. There are threads on some questions where people simply don’t know what’s being asked, such as the Project NPV question (was the delay an ‘option’ or not?). In regards to ethics, I read the CFAI text when I got home to see if I got a couple of questions right and after reading the book I still didn’t know if my answer was right. FWIW, I do remember seeing “cost proximity” before the exam.

SanFranMatt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t think reading the CFAI text would help > with the wording on the exams. They were vague > regardless of what you read. There are threads on > some questions where people simply don’t know > what’s being asked, such as the Project NPV > question (was the delay an ‘option’ or not?). > > In regards to ethics, I read the CFAI text when I > got home to see if I got a couple of questions > right and after reading the book I still didn’t > know if my answer was right. > > FWIW, I do remember seeing “cost proximity” before > the exam. exactly. freaking ethics. i read the handbook the night before the test but the questions were so ambiguous, don’t think it helped any…

I read both the CFAI texts and Schweser cover to cover. Still thought it was difficult.

My big critique of the exams (I have several) is that many questions turn on a nuance of wording rather than a straight forward testing of concepts. The quantity and complexity of the material is hard enough. I salute those taking this whose native language is not English - I’m an active practitioner in trading in an American-centric industry - and it was hard. Can you imagine taking this test in French or Japanese? Figuring out the double negatives and the little mental gymnastics is a real time burner - having a couple of those for good sport would be fine but it seems to be many more with an embedded linguistic twist, on top of the standard calculation/fsa contortions one has to master. This year’s exam had a hodge-podge feel to it - there was no real logical topical or even practical balance - I mean 2 questions on BOP and none on FCFF/options and several more, indicates to me at least that they use some sort of question bank then randomize. But they lose out on coherence, lose out on applicability, and leave huge gaps untested, many of which were studied by us all. I see that CFAI is advertising for a director of exams - l think they recognize the opportunity to improve the test. Quite frankly, they should weigh having shorter item sets (which are really compartmentalized questions in sequence, with a thin veil of a storyline) and having more freestanding questions, like in Level 1. That way they can test more core items and reward those who studied diligently and comprehensively. Their philosophy now is forcing you to study with brute force so that you hope your studies matches the questions they pull out of a figurative hat. It leaves people feeling let down and frustrated - look at the level 3 blog that shows a number of folks saying they will quit the cfa campaign if they dont pass the next time. A broader critique is the mystique/arrogance I detect from CFAI - they have a haughty manner and aren’t very accessible or responsive to simple questions. They have established a bureaucracy dealing with a burgeoning candidate population and they

(continued) dont seem to have a good handle on explaining things. It’s a tough job to be sure - but I think they need to constantly invest in candidate development - better texts, more guidance on central topics, developing these tests with a strategic purpose of validating understanding, rather than lawyerly interpretations.

Obviously the test was difficult, but there is nothing unfair about it. If this was easy, everyone in the damn industry would be a CFA charterholder and the designation would be worthless. I thought that a few of the ethics questions were worded poorly / vaguely, but these questions made up a very small percentage of the exam. The idea is that you need to understand EVERYTHING in order to pass. It’s not about picking and choosing what you think will be tested, and then hoping that it will be on the test. There were definitely some questions that I read and said “oh F_ck”, but that is life. We cannot remember every minute detain, and we don’t have to. If you take away the BOP questions, a few ethics and some PM questions, you still have 95% of the test remaining to kick ass on. As for the questions not being straightforward… why would anyone expect them to be? As a research analyst, it is your job to read between the lines. This isn’t the series 7, knowing the basic concepts isn’t going to be enough to solve every problem. I heard one a$$ clown at the testing center saying “Come ON, I can’t believe they tested Pension accounting…” Quite frankly, this pissed me off and made me appreciate the fact that this is a difficult exam and that CFAI is weeding out people like this from the program. CFAI is not trying to screw anyone over for using study notes. They flat out tell you that EVERYTHING is fair game. Schweser is a strong believer in shooting for the MPS and hoping that it sticks. If you want passing to be a sure thing, you need to have a thorough understanding of all the topics. Study notes will give you enough info to pass, but don’t expect Schweser to cover every detail on the test.

McLeod81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Obviously the test was difficult, but there is > nothing unfair about it. If this was easy, > everyone in the damn industry would be a CFA > charterholder and the designation would be > worthless. I thought that a few of the ethics > questions were worded poorly / vaguely, but these > questions made up a very small percentage of the > exam. The idea is that you need to understand > EVERYTHING in order to pass. It’s not about > picking and choosing what you think will be > tested, and then hoping that it will be on the > test. There were definitely some questions that I > read and said “oh F_ck”, but that is life. We > cannot remember every minute detain, and we don’t > have to. If you take away the BOP questions, a > few ethics and some PM questions, you still have > 95% of the test remaining to kick ass on. > > As for the questions not being straightforward… > why would anyone expect them to be? As a research > analyst, it is your job to read between the lines. > This isn’t the series 7, knowing the basic > concepts isn’t going to be enough to solve every > problem. > > I heard one a$$ clown at the testing center saying > “Come ON, I can’t believe they tested Pension > accounting…” Quite frankly, this pissed me off > and made me appreciate the fact that this is a > difficult exam and that CFAI is weeding out people > like this from the program. > > CFAI is not trying to screw anyone over for using > study notes. They flat out tell you that > EVERYTHING is fair game. Schweser is a strong > believer in shooting for the MPS and hoping that > it sticks. If you want passing to be a sure > thing, you need to have a thorough understanding > of all the topics. Study notes will give you > enough info to pass, but don’t expect Schweser to > cover every detail on the test. i’d agree with this. it wasn’t unfair. and if i didn’t pass, it’s not because i used mostly schweser.

McLeod81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I heard one a$$ clown at the testing center saying > “Come ON, I can’t believe they tested Pension > accounting…” Quite frankly, this pissed me off > and made me appreciate the fact that this is a > difficult exam and that CFAI is weeding out people > like this from the program. I agree with most of your points and am glad that this person is probably weeded out as well since they apparently did not take the topic seriously. I thought the pension section was fair, but my gripe is about having it in the curriculum in the first place. The whole thing seems pretty dated to me, and the only reason to keep it around is because the section is very easy to compose tricky vignettes on. I am glad they continuously revise the curriculem - in my opinion some of the old stuff needs to be thrown out (pension accounting). The foundation of the program should be the material and the test should be constructed to fit that. As it is now, it seems like in some areas the testable material (CFA books) is being picked based on what is easy to make a question, not on what makes a good analyst, PM, etc.

It comes down to performance in the exam, not performance outside. I bet most of us would feel alot better if we didn’t make those dumb ‘in-exam’ mistakes that were gimmes. I used strictly CFAI and getting through the fluff is the hardest part in using them for study. I feel like those who say, ‘awww, it was the material i used’ are the dumbest in the room as they can’t admit that they failed fair and square and that they aren’t as smart as they thought they were. We all know that we’re all brilliant, thus why we’re doing what we’re doing, but the guys who get the job done in the end are the ones who say, ‘I Fycked up and I need to try harder’, not, ‘the material was inadequate’. rant complete.

Question for folks who used CFAI text. I did not. Was the text clear on the Objective Research Standards to make you answer any of the six Ethics questions during PM? Also, for Portforlio Management Vignette in PM, did CFAI include things like excluding shorting during optimization to compute the minimum variance frontier? How about taking average of the MVFs for the last ten years to overcome some of the problem mentioned in one of the question. Schweser did not talk about these things in the notes. As for blaming the material, for me Schweser notes, I think you could pass the test using it. Only things missing/sparse were the details about Minimum Variance Frontier and Research Standard that showed up on PM. Also, the coverage of growth duration was just a paragraph.

If a new word for the same thing such as ‘cost proximity’ gets to you… then I’m sorry but you’ve not studied the concepts. That was a give-away.

I wholeheartedly concur with the concept that ultimately, we are responsible for our own success, whether on this test or in life. In fact, I feel confident that I passed. My critique is aimed at getting them to improve the test and the testtaking process. The fact that they keep many things closed off is a sticking point with me. When I earn the charter, I will see about getting heavily involved in constructive reform from the inside so that standards are kept high but that there is improved access, feedback and communications with candidates. Compared to what the review providers do, CFAI’s guidance is woefully lacking in quantity and quality, making candidates expend enormous amounts of time, energy and money. With better guidance and thoughtful, consistent test construction the reputation of the charter would be further enhanced and not just be seen as whimsically difficult.

born2b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > looking back at the vagueness of the exam > questions, don’t you guys think CFAI is sending a > message that you have to use CFAI study materials > to cover your bets and pass the exams? > > Let’s be honest how many of us already thinking > giving CFAI books a shot if we fail? > > I personally found the exam very easy than last > year and at the same time very vague, tricky and > specific. not really. I know people who have not even covered all the material and still passed. And as you can tell from the forum there are people who know the material very well and still fail. Personally I found that the material is not especially hard…but the test questions are almost ridiculous in some cases. I mean just look at some of the threads here…people who’ve put in the time can’t even agree with each other WITH OPEN BOOKS. Just hope I’ve made the right guesses to get me over the fence. I’m confident that I know just as much or more finance as others who passed this bad boy.

wzupdok, and you trade options?! I agree with you, well written…you should write speeches for president! :slight_smile:

“I feel like those who say, ‘awww, it was the material i used’ are the dumbest in the room as they can’t admit that they failed fair and square and that they aren’t as smart as they thought they were.” To be honest, the exam isnt really a test of intelligence or “smartness.”