http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alH7ESCP3rWE Are 250 hours sufficient to pass?
Yes, 249 and you will fail. 251 and you will pass with >70 on all sections.
IMO 250 hours is possible but not probable. I was around 330-350 last year and ended up in band 9. This year I intend to put in close to 200 just in May and probably 400 total. I would guess that on average those who pass are well above 250 hours. Some people are better at cramming than others and I’m definitely not one of them, especially on topics I find to be challenging.
topher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, 249 and you will fail. 251 and you will pass > with >70 on all sections. +100
My favorite line: “CFA applicants climbed 9 percent from last June, compared with the 35 percent decline in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index in the same period.”
L2 & L3 candidates should know by now that hours are not very relevant. It is complete mastery that matters. You need to know your stuff inside and out. I for one have done a lot more than 250 hours. But in response to the article you linked, I actually don’t like that so many people are getting the charter. Just like share dilution, more candidates means more passers, which means more charterholders, which means your charter isn’t as valuable. It’s becoming a commoditized designation. Also, with the record number of layoffs combined with the record number of candidates, doesn’t this mean that many of our competition have been studying full-time?? uh oh
I would say, 250 continuous, effective hours are enough to pass L2 with good chance. Problem is, if you are working full time and/or married w/ family, how do you find 250 continuous, effective hours?
God please let those layoffs studying full-time for level 1 this year… but imagine if everyone scores over 70%, they would still cut half of the people?
I have definitely put in much much more than 250. more like 400. You can probably pass with 250 or 300. But why take the chance?
Many of our competition have no idea what they’re getting themselves into… A lot think that only studying on weekends and reading through the material once (albeit doing the practice problems from CFAI) is enough to pass. Most of these “new sign-ups” will fail because they don’t really respect/appreciate this exam for what is. My $0.02
People only claim they could pass with less hours after they passed. I virtually never saw people not studying hard and passed the exam So if someone told you that you needed one month to prepare or only read in the weekend, they are lying to you
I think it’s pretty intuitive that people tend to report good news and holding onto the bad news. Whoever manages to pass L2 with only one pass of the materials in one month preparation time, good for you. Are these people the norm? Highly unlikely IMO.
250 hours is a joke for CFA Level 2 - I would say 2x-3x that number or even more to ace (not squeak by) the exam. That is the time I’m putting in and I got 760 GMAT - no prior finance academic or work background, though.
If 250 hours are sufficient then those who unfortunately laid off or those who have the luxury of taking one month off from work can easily pass by allocating more than 250 hours in May…i would say this doesnt make sense …
I’ll probably have put in 400-450 when all is said and done… sick.
I studied for 5 weeks last year (about 25 hours a week) and was in band 7. I think if would have done 200 I would have passed. I will probably end up studying about 150-200 this year and hope to pass. I know this is going against what you guys are saying, but this is how I feel. - D. Green
Does all the time we spent on the forum count towards the 250? If so, the regulars here could pass by just hitting their refresh buttons.
“CFA Institute recommends that to be successful, a candidate should study in excess of 750 - 900 hours for the three examination levels” http://www.cfainstitute.org/aboutus/press/release/09releases/20090512_01.html Thats the first time I have seen them use the 300hrs plus per level. 250 hours is rediculous.
^ It is somewhat ambiguously worded. They seem to imply total, but it could be interpreted as “per level.” If a person fails a level the first time while spending X hours, and they pass a subsequent time while spending Y hours, they did NOT spend Y hours studying, but rather, X+Y hours. Anyways, I am shooting for >70% in all sections of all levels - this is a significantly harder goal than squeaking by. I want to OWN the material and not have it decay fast in my brain after the test. I think many other perfectionists here can understand that, especially the INTJs here. : )
I just read pension 5 times still couldn’t master this part. Gee, L2 is much harder.