Having gone thru tons of AF posts here , I think the consensus is that the AM wasn’t easy but wasn’t unmanagible if one was mindful of time…while on the other hand the PM was brutal.
In my case it is turning out quite the opposite. The PM difficulty level was not above the CFA mock( I averaged 74 both the sessions put together) and I did more than ok in exam PM session.
However, the more I think of the AM session, the more my confidence ebbs. Admitted, I did some terrible mistakes which can cost me but on the other hand this yr.'s AM was with 100% different flavor. I believe it to the point of being tricky. It was anything but STRAIGHT FORWARD. Even qs. That apparently looked easy carried hidden twists which to the average candidates like me will be oblivious if one is not careful. So I faltered in all of them.
What do you think? Was the AM twisted or is it just me ? I think the MPS( Am portion) will not cross 48% this yr.
Yes the flavor in AM was different comparing to previous years. But still fine if one had a clear understanding of the conceptual framework. Familiarity also means good time control in AM even for a non-English native user like me.
PM was not that easy and I really faced a number of tough choices (esp. in Econ/Ethics/Equity): about 15/60 half-half plus 5/60 random guesses
Look forward to a congrats letter on 20 Aug. Best of luck for us!
First time taking level III here; I didn’t think the AM was bad at all. Sure there were some hard questions, but there were also a fair amount of easy questions that basically mirrored the CFAI EOC questions word for word (just different numbers). For the PM section, I definitely thought it was more challenging than what I was expecting (people made it seem like it would be free points), but personally I don’t see how I could have scored less than 40/60 overall.
AM: dare i say…easier…than i thought it would be? i finished on time, was only really stumped on one 7 pt calculation question, but i knew the formulas involved and wrote them down and started calulating relevant stuff so i think ill get 2/7 on that. i took every single old exam from 2010 through 2018 (not full 180s, only did relevant points) and had a total OLD EXAM score of 822/1255 which is 65.5%
PM: BRUTAL BRUTAL BRUTAL. ethics was a complete bloodbath, im hoping i got half them right. there was also a lot of plug and chug on the PM that looked simple to start with, but had hidden tricks, i hope i didnt fall for them. i did both CFAI mocks and got 43 and 44 out of 60. those were allegedly harder than the exam?? i also finished PM 15 minutes early which was super slow for me, i normally had 45 minutes to spare…
im hoping I got around a 65% on AM and a 70% on PM. but its still possible i failed. would be so disheartening.
I also found PM tough, but only because I had the feeling from last years’ reflections that PM on level 3 is easy.
Plus level 2 was significantly easier than the Mock and the website tests.
Not this one though. Website tests were super easy, the mock was hard (as I expected it to be) but the exam was in line with the mock, only much less wordy item sets. I got 41 and 43 on the mock, I had 16 unsure answers on the exam (no guesses, just unsure), but I gather such a performance is not a passing unless you overperform on the AM.
For the AM: I went into exam knowing I could not prepare enough, and knowing that I’m not able to complete it in 180 mins. (plus I cannot do it w/o a bathroom break).
Well I wasn’t left the last 2 sub- questions totally blank, plus there was one where I did not understand what the question was asking. 21 points in all.
But: apart from maybe 5-6 sub-questions where I have huge doubts if I will get any points, I don’t remember the exam. I could not tell you one single Private Wealth question that was asked.
Whether it means that these were relatively easy (doable) or not - I’ve got no idea.
Generally I know I was writing so ugly and ustructured, I’m not sure the graders will be able to read. So I’m not hoping for AM either.