Pass Rate Distribution Curve

I was just thinking in terms of a normal distribution curve. Let’s say the pass rate is 54% again this year. If 100 ppl write 54 pass and 46 fail. However can we argue the bottom 10% of the curve are people who just didn’t show up to write the exam, left after morning exam etc. If you know your not one of these people u can increase ur chances to higher than 54%. Lets say 54/90 which is 60%!

pretty sure they don’t include no shows in the pass rate statistics

I believe you are correct arb… I think the pss rate is only of those who completed both the AM and PM sessions.

It definitely is. I find it so hard to judge how tough the competition is. Overall I have a good feeling about the exam and my chances but having to beat almost 50% of people who completed L1 and L2 and are not taking the piss on L3 makes me worry.

Let’s hope that those people just showed up for AM section then. Would that count?

If that’s true there will be alot of smart people who put in alot of effort, know most of the material and will still fail. Such a savage process.

That’s the cfa? Would you prefer if it had an 80%+ pass rate? Would that diminish the charter’s value?

Even an 80% pass rate at level 3 is still low with a 43% and 47% at level 1 and 2. if you do 0.43*0.47*0.80=16%. I don’t think it would be diminished at that level. What is considered diminished. I don’t think CPAs where there are over 2 million people with it have there charters diminished even if alot of people have it. They still make 100k+. I guess its all perspective

Cfp is softer than Dairy Queen ice cream

What about the chocolate coating?

They should just make you send a time card detailing 300 hours of study for each level and forget about this whole testing thing. Very inefficient.

Or separate the exam to be tested at 4 different times in a year (Private Wealth/Behavioral/Ethics, Institutional/Fixed Income, Equities/Asset Allocations/Performance Evaluation, Risk Mgmt/Alternatives/Trading). Make it a 3-hour exam and more difficult.

I feel like the vast majority of people score in the 50s and 60s. The curve has most likely has high positive kurtosis. I feel like the a lot of the people who pass maybe marginally smarter (like by one or two questions) than the most of the people who fail.

i also believe that the majority of ppl score between 55-65 on the exam.

this is what scares me: the idea that the difference between a band 7 fail and a pass could be as little as the differnce between 215/360 points vs 225/360 points.

as anglo-centric and borderline racist as the following is about to sound, i really truly hope the thousands upon thousands of non native english speakers who sat for the exam were so incredibly lost on the essay that it makes my score look better. i left 20/180 points completely BLANK, so for me, assuming i got a 55% on the rest (what i was getting on mocks) that gives me about a 90/180 on the AM.

this means i needed to rip at minimum a 45/60 on the PM to have a shot. and even then, thats below a 63%. its more like a 61%. the more i think about it. the more i think ill be on Analyst Forum again next year.

This is the reason why I would prefer a very, very difficult exam, with enough time and no strange wordings or way to ask question were non native english speakers candidate are really disadvantaged. I find this unfair and not a proper way to test the knowledge of candidates.

While I am not a native speaker either, having studied in the UK naturally puts me in a better spot language-wise.

However, and irrespective of my background, I do not find their writing to be an issue. The English we encounter in CFA readings and exams is not that sophisticated and could be worse, no? Maybe Americans can comment as well.

edited

this is a good point and actually I think regardless of your native language the more prepared you are the harder an exam you should “root for” as it makes it more likely you will achieve a passing score.

I really don’t think the non-native English speakers affect anything that much at level 3. The English on the exam is not all that difficult and if you work in the financial industry you most likely need to be quite fluent in English no matter where you live. Maybe at level 1 this becomes an issue for those who don’t know what they’re getting into, but at level 3 I feel like thats a stretch.

I think it’s harder for non-native English speakers at L3 due to the written portion and the time pressure, especially for non-Western native language speakers. Of course it comes down to proficiency, but one has to be a very discerning reader to pick up the nuances being tested, especially Ethics… kudos to all those non-native English speaking people who get through.