?
yep me
I did
To be honest, I am not sure if I read much ethics for LII. It seemed all about the same as LI for me. Just with more confusing questions.
I did Ethics for exactly 3 days (Soft Dollar, Prudent Man - Prudent Investor and Research Objectivity) and passed it with >70 at L2. Though I ended up failing L2 overall.
swaptiongamma Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I did Ethics for exactly 3 days (Soft Dollar, > Prudent Man - Prudent Investor and Research > Objectivity) and passed it with >70 at L2. Though > I ended up failing L2 overall. was tht because you studied 3 days for other sections too?.. L2 is a lucky draw in a way, if they ask you the questions you reviewed and are comfortable with. then you are on your way to a pass. think of all the different derivative question they can ask. but the set question they asked last year, I did a similar question like a couple of days before the exam. easy 6 out of 6.
whystudy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > L2 is a lucky draw in a way, if they ask you the > questions you reviewed and are comfortable with. > then you are on your way to a pass. think of all > the different derivative question they can ask. > but the set question they asked last year, I did a > similar question like a couple of days before the > exam. easy 6 out of 6. This is so true. I actually lost some respect for the charter after taking L2 last year. There is way too much variability built into this level. I hope L3 isn’t the same way.
Believe me - I gave in solid 3 months and still failed it. Ethics was the only topic which I kept for the last and just managed to get 3 days due to work pressure from a falling company.
yes. only Schweser, and got 11 out of 12 according to the forums.
mwvt9 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > whystudy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > > L2 is a lucky draw in a way, if they ask you > the > > questions you reviewed and are comfortable > with. > > then you are on your way to a pass. think of > all > > the different derivative question they can ask. > > > but the set question they asked last year, I did > a > > similar question like a couple of days before > the > > exam. easy 6 out of 6. > > This is so true. I actually lost some respect for > the charter after taking L2 last year. There is > way too much variability built into this level. I > hope L3 isn’t the same way. but then again, life in itself is a luck of a draw. depending on the family you are born into, the opportunities you get. life itself is 50% a draw; for those who say if you study hard then you can control you own faith, that’s a sack of sh*t, you have to be born with the capacity to study in the first place.
I think they test a mix of core and more obscure topics at L2 to weed out the people who thought they could get by with just mastering the core topics. You really need to know the entire curriculum to get over the bar.
bhill020 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think they test a mix of core and more obscure > topics at L2 to weed out the people who thought > they could get by with just mastering the core > topics. You really need to know the entire > curriculum to get over the bar. level 2 is just like the movie slumdog millioniare… you don’t need to know everything. you just need to be lucky and know what they ask you.
wow whystudy - I liked both of your posts up here.
whystudy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > but then again, life in itself is a luck of a > draw. depending on the family you are born into, > the opportunities you get. life itself is 50% a > draw; for those who say if you study hard then you > can control you own faith, that’s a sack of sh*t, > you have to be born with the capacity to study in > the first place. I don’t disagree with your statement. The CFA exams are not supposed to be a microcosm of life. They are designed to weed out the best in finance. In fact, they call themselves the “gold standard” (I still find this ironic). ---------------------------------------------- Straight from CFA website: Benefits for You Credibility: Clients and colleagues regard you with a presumption of expertise -------------------------------------------------- The more the element of luck comes into this exams, the more they move away from the gold standard and go towards the random standard. How credible (first thing listed on CFA’s site) would the designation be if luck played a large role? Don’t get me wrong, I think the exams do a pretty good job at fleshing out who knows there stuff, but L2 seemed like too few questions on certain topics.
whystudy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > level 2 is just like the movie slumdog > millioniare… you don’t need to know everything. > you just need to be lucky and know what they ask > you. Couldn’t agree more here. This is what I think is wrong. If you are asked to learn all the material, at least give an exam that is somewhat representative of it. I don’t know much about creating a good exam, so maybe I am being too hard on them. And maybe I am just bitter because some of my good AF buddies from L2 missed by a narrow margin.
I’m not sure it’s ‘wrong’ but it’s a good description of the level 2 beast.
If you know all of the material, it shouldn’t matter whether they test it all, or if not how much or what parts they do test. If you didn’t know all of the material and didn’t pass because they tested portions you didn’t know, I don’t think you should be complaining. If you didn’t know all of the material and did pass because they tested portions you did know, I certainly don’t think you should be complaining. In any case I don’t see how anyone has any reason to complain about this.
Captain Windjammer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you know all of the material, it shouldn’t > matter whether they test it all, or if not how > much or what parts they do test. If you didn’t > know all of the material and didn’t pass because > they tested portions you didn’t know, I don’t > think you should be complaining. If you didn’t > know all of the material and did pass because they > tested portions you did know, I certainly don’t > think you should be complaining. In any case I > don’t see how anyone has any reason to complain > about this. ofcourse there is. you complain about those people who brag about studying for like a month or so and passed, because you clearly know they lucked out, but they make it sound like as if they were smart and knew eveyrthing already. you complain about those retards…
By “complain about this” I meant complain about what the CFAI decides to test or not test on the CFA exam (as I think should have been apparent). There may be other things worth complaining about, though I don’t think the example you mention is one of them.
I wish to use this opportunity to complain about the BOP questions on the L2 exams last year. THAT WAS RIDICULOUS!!!